Opinion ID: 739603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: McGraw's Section 1983 Claim

Text: 4 McGraw claims that Zimmerman and the County falsely accused him of criminal and other improper conduct and fired him on the basis of these accusations, even though the County district attorney's office found no probable cause to support the criminal charges. We recognize 5 that a liberty interest is implicated in the employment termination context if the charge impairs a reputation for honesty or morality and that procedural protections of due process apply if: (1) the accuracy of the charge is contested; (2) there is some public disclosure of the charge; and (3) the charge is made in connection with termination of employment. 6 Matthews v. Harney County, Or., School Dist. No. 4, 819 F.2d 889, 891-92 (9th Cir.1987). We can assume for purposes of this appeal that the charges against McGraw impair his reputation and trigger the procedural protections of due process. As we hold that McGraw cannot prevail on his claim that the County denied him due process, we need not reach the substance of his defamation allegations. 7 Due process--notice and an opportunity to be heard--for McGraw's purposes, consists of an opportunity to refute the charge before County officials. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972); see also id. at n. 12 (The purpose of such notice and hearing is to provide the person an opportunity to clear his name.). The County maintains a three-step procedure for addressing and resolving grievances held by County employees. At his deposition, McGraw acknowledged his awareness and understanding of these procedures. McGraw chose to forego them, instead retaining counsel who pursued McGraw's claims against the County. McGraw's failure to follow the County's grievance procedure has foreclosed his § 1983 claim: where adequate administrative procedures exist, a person cannot state a claim for denial of procedural rights when he has elected to forego a complete hearing. Correa v. Nampa School Dist. No. 131, 645 F.2d 814, 817 (9th Cir.1981). 8 Moreover, there is no evidence that the County procedures were inadequate. See id. McGraw's argument that the grievance procedures themselves show that Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief requested misses the mark. Though McGraw, through a letter his lawyer drafted, angrily requested all manner of relief from the County, the only relief to which he was constitutionally entitled was an opportunity to clear his name. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573 n. 12. The County grievance procedure provides an adequate opportunity to obtain that relief. McGraw's failure to pursue the County-provided process is fatal to his § 1983 claim. The district court's decision to grant summary judgment sua sponte to defendants on McGraw's § 1983 claim is AFFIRMED.