Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, George Byrd,robert Singer, Cliff Miller, and John White,plaintiffs/appellants, v. Brad Gates, Sheriff-coroner, County of Orange, and County Oforange, Defendants/appellees, 716 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1983)

Appellants Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Robert Singer and Cliff Miller appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment to appellees holding Cal.Penal Code Secs. 12031(b) (1) and 12027 do not grant entitlements sufficient to invoke the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.¹  The district court also rejected appellants' claim that their liberty interests were implicated and injured by appellees' action. We affirm.

Appellants, former deputy sheriffs retired under medical disability, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging they had been denied certificates allowing them, after retirement, to carry concealed and loaded weapons.²  Appellants argue Cal.Penal Code Secs. 12031(b) (1) and 12027,³  which provide for the certificates, create an entitlement sufficient to warrant constitutional protection.⁴ 

"A property interest in a benefit protected by the due process clause results from a legitimate claim of entitlement created and defined by an independent source, such as state or federal law." Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). This interest does not arise "whenever a person has only 'an abstract need or desire for' or 'unilateral expectation of,' a benefit." Erdelyi v. O'Brien, 680 F.2d 61, 63 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S. Ct. at 2709). A reasonable expectation of entitlement is determined largely by the language of the statute and the extent to which the entitlement is couched in mandatory terms. See Griffeth v. Detrich, 603 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 970, 100 S. Ct. 1348, 64 L. Ed. 2d 247 (1980).

The only restrictions imposed by Sec. 12027(a) and Sec. 12031(b) (1) are 1) the agency from which the officer retires issues a certificate indicating whether or not the officer may carry a concealed weapon⁵  and 2) the privilege of carrying a loaded concealed weapon may be denied or revoked for "good cause".⁶  This court finds, as did the court below, that the requirement of "good cause" prior to the denial of a weapons certificate does not create a constitutionally protected interest, because it is not a "significant substantive restriction on the basis for [the] agency's action." Jacobson v. Hannifin, 627 F.2d 177, 180 (9th Cir. 1980). See also Erdelyi v. O'Brien, supra, (private investigator did not have property interest in concealed weapons permit under Cal.Penal Code Sec. 12050).

Similarly, the court rejects appellants' argument that the denial of the exemption causes a loss of liberty without due process of law in that their reputations were damaged and alternative sources of employment were foreclosed. "Unpublicized accusations do not infringe constitutional liberty interests because, by definition, they cannot harm 'good name, reputation, honor or integrity.' (Citations omitted) ... When reasons are not given, inferences drawn from [denial of the exemption] alone are simply insufficient to implicate liberty interests." Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 1101 (9th Cir. 1981). Further, alternative sources of employment would not be foreclosed for failure to issue a certificate authorizing the carrying of a loaded concealed weapon as appellants can apply for such a permit under Cal.Penal Code Sec. 12050 notwithstanding their success under the statutes at issue here.

Finally, appellants have moved to strike pages three and four of appellees' opening brief. That motion is granted as appellees' allegations are insufficiently set forth.⁷ 

AFFIRMED.