NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD ALLEN REYNOLDS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

LEWIS COUNTY, WASHINGTON; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35347 

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-06062-BHS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 1, 2017**

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,*** District 

Judge.

Ronald Reynolds appeals from a district court order granting summary 

judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellees, Lewis County and Lewis County 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOV 3 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-35347 

Coroner, Warren McLeod. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary 

judgment. Balint v. Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 

Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome Estates, 116 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 1997)). We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reynolds filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for claims arising 

out of an inquest conducted by the Coroner into the death of Reynolds’s wife. An 

inquest jury determined that the cause of death was homicide and that Reynolds 

was one of the persons responsible. The Coroner issued an arrest warrant for 

Reynolds, though the County Prosecutor declined to bring charges. Reynolds 

contends that both the County and the Coroner violated his Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights during this process.

The Coroner is entitled to qualified immunity as Reynolds has not shown a 

violation of his constitutional rights. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 

(2009). The Coroner had jurisdiction and authority to conduct the inquest, and he 

did not abuse his discretion in doing so. Wash. Rev. Code § 36.24.020 (2011). 

Therefore, the arrest that followed, which was mandated by statute, was supported 

by probable cause and did not violate Reynolds’s Fourth Amendment rights. See

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.24.100 (2011). Similarly, Reynolds has not shown a 

violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Reynolds claims that he was 

deprived of his property interest in his continued employment with the school 
3 15-35347 

district, but has offered no evidence that his employment was the sort of public 

employment in which he had a constitutionally protected property interest, and no 

evidence that he did not resign voluntarily. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. 

Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538 (1985). As to any substantive due process claim, 

Reynolds’s assertion that his arrest was unlawful is properly analyzed under the 

Fourth Amendment, and, for the reasons announced above, the claim is without 

merit. See Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 881-82 (9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, 

no conduct of the Coroner meets the high standard of a substantive due process 

violation. See Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 991 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Cnty. 

of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845–49 (1998)) (noting that a substantive 

due process violation involves action that shocks the conscience).

Reynolds also appeals the district court’s dismissal of his three state law 

claims against the Coroner for abuse of process, unlawful arrest, and libel. All of 

Reynolds’s state law claims stem from the Coroner’s inquest proceeding, which is 

a mechanism for determining the cause and manner of death. Therefore, pursuant 

to Washington state law, the Coroner is immune from liability for Reynolds’s state 

law claims. Wash. Rev. Code § 68.50.015 (2011). 

Finally, summary judgment was proper as to Reynolds’s claims against the 

County under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 

436 U.S. 658 (1978), because a municipality cannot be held liable when there is no 
4 15-35347 

underlying constitutional violation. Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541 

F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2008). 

AFFIRMED.