Silva v. City of Los Gatos

Background

Johnathon Silva sued the City of Los Gatos and others after the City ended his employment as a peace officer. He brought one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local actors for violating constitutional rights. Silva alleged that the City and Police Chief Peter Decena terminated him because members of the community were upset and applied public pressure after a video of an alleged use-of-force incident became public. He alleged that the decision was arbitrary and unrelated to his work performance, productivity, or skills.

The City and Decena moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally valid claim. The opinion describes Silva as having been hired on a probationary basis. It also states that, before joining the City, he had worked for the San Jose State University Police Department and had been investigated over an alleged use-of-force incident, for which he was ultimately exonerated.

Legal Standard and Analysis

Silva claimed that the defendants violated his substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court explained that the Ninth Circuit has not recognized a substantive due process right to a particular public job, but has recognized a limited right to pursue an occupation. Such an occupational-liberty claim requires more than an adverse employment decision. The alleged government conduct must be arbitrary and irrational and must effectively prevent the person from pursuing the occupation.

The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s description of extreme cases, such as government blacklisting that is circulated to potential employers and effectively excludes a person from the occupation. Silva alleged that the defendants terminated him in response to public pressure, but he did not allege that they took stigmatizing action resembling blacklisting or that their conduct made it virtually impossible for him to obtain other employment. His statement that he would “never be able to secure employment in any way” if such a termination were lawful was, in the court’s view, insufficient because it was not supported by factual allegations showing that the defendants destroyed his freedom to pursue other employment.

The court found Silva’s reliance on other cases unpersuasive. It said one case involved a challenge to legislation rather than a termination, while another involved an alleged deprivation of property when a building permit was denied for political reasons. Silva alleged neither legislation restricting employment nor a deprivation of property.

Ruling

The court held that Silva’s complaint did not allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable substantive due process claim. Judge Edward J. Davila granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and stated that the dismissal was without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile.

Because the court found that Silva had not stated a cognizable claim, it did not address the defendants’ arguments that there was no basis for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services or that Decena was entitled to qualified immunity.