Honey v. Distelrath (November 9, 1999)
* Court: Ninth Circuit
* Public Employer: West Covina
* Plaintiff's Job Class: Jailer
* Plaintiff's Lawyer: Larry Roberts
* Trial Court Decision: Against plaintiff
* Ninth Circuit Decision: In favor of plaintiff
* Issues: Federal civil rights litigation, claim preclusion, Parratt
rule
Honey Facts
* Honey was a jailer with West Covina.
* Honey was fired in January 1996 for excessive force and
mistreatment of female and minority prisoners.
* Honey appealed his termination and, at his hearing, requested to
see all documents which formed the basis for his termination. (It is not
explained why he did not get all of this at his Skelly hearing.)
His request was refused, and his termination was upheld.
* Honey then filed a petition for writ of mandate, alleging his
termination violated his procedural due process rights. The state court
in June 1996 granted his petition and awarded him reinstatement and back
pay.
* Honey then in July 1996 filed a million dollar claim with the city,
which was denied.
* Honey in February 1997 filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in
state court, which the city removed to federal court.
* The city then moved to dismiss Honey's action on the ground that
Honey's successful state mandate action cured any procedural due process
violation; the federal district court granted the city's motion to
dismiss.
* Honey appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court.
Honey Analysis
* Normally Honey would be barred by res judicata (otherwise known as
claims preclusion) from relitigating in the new case the issues he could
have raised in his mandate action. But this rule does not apply to Honey
because the California Supreme Court held in 1993 that a mandamus action
does not bar a subsequent federal civil rights action.
* The Ninth Circuit next found that Honey squeezed into another
exception to another rule. That other rule is the Parratt
rule, with the United States Supreme Court ruling that, where random and
unauthorized acts by public officials had occurred, a plaintiff could
not file a federal civil rights lawsuit where a post-deprivation state
tort review process that complied with due process was available. The
exception to the Parratt rule is the Zinermon
exception, with the United States Supreme Court ruling that, where the
due process violation was predictable, where a pre-deprivation review
process could be created, and where the public official's act was
deliberate, then a federal civil rights lawsuit could be filed, even if
a post-deprivation state tort review process that complied with due
process was available.
* The Ninth Circuit held that Honey came within the Zinermon
exception, since the city's decision not to provide him with the back-up
materials was deliberate, authorized, and a foreseeable deprivation of
Honey's due process rights.
Conclusion
This case illustrates that, in a situation where a public employer
has an established policy of violating due process rights, a federal
civil rights lawsuit is available, even after a petition for writ of
mandate has been successfully litigated.
