NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD ALLEN REYNOLDS, No. 15-35347
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-06062-BHS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEWIS COUNTY, WASHINGTON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 1, 2017**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,*** District
Judge.
Ronald Reynolds appeals from a district court order granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellees, Lewis County and Lewis County
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
Coroner, Warren McLeod. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary
judgment. Balint v. Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing
Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome Estates, 116 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 1997)). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Reynolds filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for claims arising
out of an inquest conducted by the Coroner into the death of Reynolds’s wife. An
inquest jury determined that the cause of death was homicide and that Reynolds
was one of the persons responsible. The Coroner issued an arrest warrant for
Reynolds, though the County Prosecutor declined to bring charges. Reynolds
contends that both the County and the Coroner violated his Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights during this process.
The Coroner is entitled to qualified immunity as Reynolds has not shown a
violation of his constitutional rights. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232
(2009). The Coroner had jurisdiction and authority to conduct the inquest, and he
did not abuse his discretion in doing so. Wash. Rev. Code § 36.24.020 (2011).
Therefore, the arrest that followed, which was mandated by statute, was supported
by probable cause and did not violate Reynolds’s Fourth Amendment rights. See
Wash. Rev. Code § 36.24.100 (2011). Similarly, Reynolds has not shown a
violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Reynolds claims that he was
deprived of his property interest in his continued employment with the school
2 15-35347
district, but has offered no evidence that his employment was the sort of public
employment in which he had a constitutionally protected property interest, and no
evidence that he did not resign voluntarily. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v.
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538 (1985). As to any substantive due process claim,
Reynolds’s assertion that his arrest was unlawful is properly analyzed under the
Fourth Amendment, and, for the reasons announced above, the claim is without
merit. See Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 881-82 (9th Cir. 2001). Additionally,
no conduct of the Coroner meets the high standard of a substantive due process
violation. See Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 991 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Cnty.
of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845–49 (1998)) (noting that a substantive
due process violation involves action that shocks the conscience).
Reynolds also appeals the district court’s dismissal of his three state law
claims against the Coroner for abuse of process, unlawful arrest, and libel. All of
Reynolds’s state law claims stem from the Coroner’s inquest proceeding, which is
a mechanism for determining the cause and manner of death. Therefore, pursuant
to Washington state law, the Coroner is immune from liability for Reynolds’s state
law claims. Wash. Rev. Code § 68.50.015 (2011).
Finally, summary judgment was proper as to Reynolds’s claims against the
County under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York,
436 U.S. 658 (1978), because a municipality cannot be held liable when there is no
3 15-35347
underlying constitutional violation. Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541
F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
4 15-35347