The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD MATHIS, Special No. 14-15912
Administrator of the Estate of Joe
Robinson Mathis and as Trustee of the Joe D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00628-APG-
Robinson Mathis and Eleanor Margherite GWF
Mathis Trust, AKA Joe R. Mathis; JAMES
MATHIS; ANTHONY MATHIS,
individually, MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
COUNTY OF LYON, a Political
Subdivision of the State of Nevada,
Defendant,
And
RICHARD GLOVER, individually,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted February 2, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, District
Judge.***
Richard Glover brings an interlocutory appeal, after cross-motions for
summary judgment, from the district court’s decision denying him qualified
immunity on Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process
claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), Mitchell v. Forsyth,
472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985), and we affirm.
In Mathis v. County of Lyon, 633 F.3d 877, 878-79 (9th Cir. 2011), we
previously considered whether the district court erred in holding, subsequent to a
motion to dismiss, that Appellant Glover was not entitled to the defense of
qualified immunity. We found no error when we held that “the failure to give
notice and an opportunity to respond before Glover took the items from the house
violated due process” and that “[t]he right to notice and hearing prior to a public
official’s administrative taking of property is clearly established.” Id. at 879
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
2
(citing Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82, 97 (1972) and United States v. James
Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 53 (1993)).
Because it is an undisputed fact that Glover gave no notice or an opportunity
for a pre-deprivation hearing before removing personal property from Plaintiffs-
Appellees’ deceased father’s home, our decision in Mathis controls, and Glover is
not entitled to qualified immunity.
AFFIRMED.
3