United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendants David Gibson, Elizabeth
Gonzalez, Steve Grierson, and Ed May's (collectively,
“the state defendants”) motion to dismiss. (ECF
No. 9). Plaintiff Matt Medoff filed a response (ECF No. 16),
to which the state defendants replied (ECF No. 23).
before the court is defendant Clark County's motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No.
16), to which Clark County replied (ECF No. 25).
before the court is Clark County's stipulation for
extension of time to file a reply in support of its motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 21).
instant action considers whether defendants afforded
plaintiff adequate process under the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment during employment termination
Eighth Judicial District Court employed plaintiff as a
post-probationary administrative deputy marshal. (ECF No. 1).
On May 2, 2016, plaintiff “was involved [as a private
citizen] in an off-duty incident [with the LVMPD].”
Id. The complaint relates the incident to an alleged
relationship between plaintiff and a female deputy district
October 6, 2016, plaintiff received notice that his employer
had placed him on administrative leave, pending termination,
due to the incident. Id. The notice listed six
grounds for termination:
1. That [plaintiff] refused to answer the door of the home he
was staying in as a guest after LVMPD officers knocked and
announced their presence;
2. [Plaintiff] was dishonest with LVMPD dispatchers when he
claimed he did not know LVMPD was outside;
3. [Plaintiff] was dishonest to Internal Affairs when
claiming that he was simply friends with a female Deputy
4. [Plaintiff] engaged in impropriety and/or the appearance
of impropriety by being in a relationship beyond friendship
with a female Deputy District Attorney;
5. [Plaintiff] engaged in conduct unbecoming an employee by
arguing with 911 dispatchers, failing to contact responding
LVMPD officers, and failing to disclose his relationship with
the female Deputy District Attorney; and
6. [Plaintiff] neglected his duty by submitting a report
regarding the events of May 2, 2016 which was incomplete and
October 20, 2016, plaintiff attended a pretermination hearing
in front of discovery commissioner Bonnie Bulla. Id.
The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether
defendants could terminate plaintiff for cause based on the
May 2, 2016 incident. Id. Bulla determined that
sufficient evidence supported discipline for violating the
off duty incidents policy (by failing to make himself
available to responding LVMPD officers) and for conduct
unbecoming an employee (by not contacting responding LVMPD
officers). Id. Bulla opined that these violations
alone did not constitute a sufficient basis to terminate
plaintiff's employment. Id.
November 2, 2016, defendant Grierson, the court executive
officer, adopted the findings of the pretermination hearing.
Id. On November 8, 2016, Grierson sent plaintiff an
email stating that the court ...