Opinion ID: 621734
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Russo’s Claims Fail On The Merits

Text: Even if we were to consider the merits of his claims, Russo has failed to state a claim for a violation of procedural due process under § 1983. For such a claim, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) he was deprived of an individual interest that is encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of life, liberty, or property, and (2) the procedures available to him did not provide due process of law.” Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 234 (3d Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The question of whether an employee has a property right in continued employment is a question of state law.” McDaniels v. Flick, 59 F.3d 446, 458 (3d Cir. 1995). As the Commonwealth Court held, Pennsylvania statutory law provides that a member of the BRT is subject to removal “without cause.” See Supp. App. 31-32 (analyzing 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2142(b)). Because he could be so removed, Russo did not have a right to continued employment, and, therefore, he had no property interest in his position with the BRT. See id at 31-32. Without a property interest in his position with the BRT, Russo cannot, as a matter of law, state a claim for a procedural due process violation under § 1983. Accordingly, even if we were to consider their merits, Russo’s claims fail. 8