N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PAUL C AR

AW AY, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. TOW N OF C OLUM B US; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-35334 D.C . No. 1:16-c v-00139-TJC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na T im othy J. C a va n, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 9, 2019 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , C ALLAHAN, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff Pa

ul C ara way , a

form e r se rge ant with the

C olum bus Polic e De pa rtm e nt, a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gra nting sum m a ry judgm e nt to the town, its M ay or, a

nd its form e r c hie f of polic e (c olle c tive ly , De fe nda nts). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
APR 22 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.1. W e re vie w d e nov o the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gra nting De fe nda nts’ m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt on C ara way ’ s § 1983 dueproc e ss c la im s. 1 S e e Le v ine v . C

ity of Alame da , 525 F.3d 903, 905 (9th C ir. 2008). “ An e s se ntia l princ iple of due proc e s s is tha

t a de priva tion of life , libe rty , or prope rty ‘ be pre c e de d by

notic e and opportunity

for he aring a

ppropria te to the na t

ure of the c a se . ’ ” C

le v e land Bd. of Educ . v . Loude rmill , 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (quoting Mullane v . C e nt. Hanov e r Bank & Tr. C o. , 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950)). To m e e t this re quire m e nt, the sta te
m ust provide pre -te rm i na tion notic e with a n e xpla na tion of its e vide nc e , a

nd a n opportunity

for the e m

p l oy e e fa c ing disc ha

rge to re spond, e ithe r ora lly or in writing. Se e

, e .g. , Matthe w

s v . Harne

y C ty
. Sc h. Dist. N

o. 4 , 819 F.2d 889, 892 (9th C ir. 1987).

“ [T] he e xiste nc e of post-te rm ination proc e dure s is [a lso] re le va n t to the
ne c e ssa ry sc ope of pre te rm ination proc e dure s.” Loude rmill , 470 U.S a t 547 n.12. In som e c a se s, “ the ina de qua c y of post-te rm ination proc e ss m ay itse lf be the
sourc e of a

distinc t due proc e ss viola tion.” C le me nts v . Airport Auth. of W ashoe C ty
. , 69 F.3d 321, 332 (9th C ir. 1995). Ultima te ly , a re v ie wing c ourt a

pplie s the fle xible Mathe w

s v . Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976), fra m e work to de te rm ine how

1 The pa

rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c t s a

nd a rgum e nts on a

p pe a l, so we do not re c ite the m

he re . 2m

uc h post-te rm ination proc e ss is re quire d in a ny give n c a se . Se e Loude r

mill , 470 U.S. a t 543 (a

na ly z ing due proc e ss re quire m e nts in light of Mathe w s ); se e also Armstrong v . Me

y e r s , 964 F.2d 948, 950 (9th C ir. 1992) (a pply ing Mathe w

s to de te rm i ne suffic ie nc y

of post-de priva

tion proc e ss). W e have a lso re c ogniz e d tha t the te rm ination of a

public e m

ploy e e that inc l ude s public a tion of stigma tiz ing c ha rge s trigge rs due proc e ss prote c tions. Se e Mustafa v . C

lark C ty . Sc h. Dist. , 157 F.3d 1169, 1179 (9th C ir. 1998) (c iting Bd. of Re ge nts v . Roth , 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972)). If a n e m ploy e e ’ s te rm ination im plic a t e s this re puta

tiona l libe rty inte re st, “ the e m ploy e e m ust be give n a

n opportunity

to re fute the stigm a tiz ing c ha rge . ” Id. “ Fa i lure to provide a

‘ n a m e -c le aring’ he aring in suc h a c irc u m sta

nc e is a viola tion of the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt’ s due proc e ss c la use .” C ox v . Rosk e l le y , 359 F.3d 1105, 1110 (9th C ir. 2004). C ara way doe s not, for c o nstitutiona l purpose s, c ha lle nge the suffic ie nc y of De fe nda nts’ pre -te rm inat i on proc e dure s . W e c o nc lude tha t C ara w ay ’ s sta

tutory right to a post-te rm ination he aring be fore the C olum bus Polic e C om m ission—

whe re he c ould ha

ve subpoe na e d witne s se s an d te stifie d public ly

— a ffords a d e quate post-te rm ination proc e s s. S e e M ont. C ode Ann. § 7- 32-4164(2) (W e s t 2019)

. T he proc e s s provide d C ara way with a n opportunity

to
3c ha lle nge his disc h arge and to c le ar his na m e . B e c a u s e C ara way ha s not e x e rc ise d his sta t utorily gua ra nte e d post-te rm ination proc e dure , he c annot now c la im a viola tion of his due

proc e ss rights, pa

rtic ula rly be c a use the re is no sta

tute of lim ita tions on his right to se e k re vie w with the Polic e C om m ission. Se e W

alls v

. C e nt. C ontra C osta Transit Auth. , 653 F.3d 963, 969 (9th C ir. 2011). 2. M onta

na ’ s W rongful Disc ha

rge from Em ploy m e nt Ac t (W DEA) provide s that a disc ha rge “ is wrongful” if “ the e m ploy e r viola

te d the e xpre ss provisions of its own writte n pe rsonne l polic y .” M ont. C ode Ann. § 39-2-904(1)(c ) (W e st 2019). W e c onc l ude that M ay or W olte rm a n n’ s a bse nc e from

C hie f Pronovost’ s pre -te rm ination inte rvie w with C ara w ay did not viola

te an e x pre ss provision of a

ny of the Town of C olum

bus’ s writte n pe rsonne l polic ie s. W e c onside re d C ara way ’ s
a dditiona l a sse rtions of polic y v iola tions, but c onc lude tha

t none are “ dire c tly linke d” with C ara

way ’ s te rm ination for purpose s of the W DEA. Se e W illiams v

. Plum C re e k Timbe r C

o. , 264 P.3d 1090, 1097 (M ont. 2011). AFFIRM E D.

4