# Richard Mathis v. Richard Glover

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 4, 2015 · 591 F. App'x 635

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2776679

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard MATHIS, Special Administrator of the Estate of Joe Robinson Mathis and as Trustee of the Joe Robinson Mathis and Eleanor Margherite Mathis Trust, AKA Joe R. Mathis; James Mathis; Anthony Mathis, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF LYON, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada, Defendant, and Richard Glover, Individually, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 4, 2015
- **Citations:** 591 F. App'x 635
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Tallman, Rawlinson, Murphy
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2776679

## Opinion text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 04 2015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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2776679. Public record. Not legal advice.