Preston v. City of Pleasant Hill, et al, No. 10-1899 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff alleged that defendants violated his procedural due process rights when he was relieved of his responsibilities to fight, inspect, and investigate fires for the Pleasant Hill Volunteer Fire Department. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants when plaintiff maintained that a reasonable jury could find that he was a fire code official because he performed some of the duties of a fire code official. Also at issue was whether the district court properly denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider. The court affirmed summary judgment and held that it was undisputed that plaintiff did not exercise many of the most significant responsibilities of a "fire code official" and that there was no evidence in the record that one of the defendants, in her capacity as fire code official, or anyone else, appointed plaintiff as defendants' "duly authorized representative." Therefore, plaintiff did not have a protected property interest in his position to support a due process claim. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to reconsider where his motion was improper for repeating arguments the district court had already rejected in granting defendants' motions for summary judgment and belatedly bringing the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") applications to the district court's attention, even though the DHS applications were available to him at the time he resisted defendants' summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: Civil Case - civil rights. Volunteer firefighter was not a "fire code official" because he was not appointed by the chief appointing authority and did not exercise many of the most significant responsibilities of the position. Thus, he did not have a property interest in his position to support a due process violation when he was relieved of his responsibilities. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to alter or amend. Judge Bye concurs.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.