DePaul Industries v. Miller, No. 20-35598 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Miller, an assistant city attorney, advised the City of Eugene not to renew contracts with DePaul, a qualified nonprofit agency for individuals with disabilities (QRF) under an Oregon law that requires cities to contract with QRFs in certain circumstances. DePaul sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that it held a clearly established constitutionally protected property interest in two 12-month security-service contracts. In 2016, Eugene had decided to modify its security services by requiring that the security service employees be armed and decided not to renew the contracts.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and held that Miller was entitled to qualified immunity. No court has considered DePaul’s novel argument that the Oregon QRF statute created a protected property interest in city contracts. Nor does the QRF statute on its face definitively resolve that question. DePaul did not provide any precedent addressing Oregon’s QRF statute or anything closely related. There was no precedent clear enough that every reasonable official would interpret the QRF statute as creating a protected property interest in DePaul’s annual contracts. There was also no precedent considering whether the QRF statute allows the city to end a contract if it seeks new services, such as armed security.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s order denying, on summary judgment, qualified immunity to Benjamin Miller, an assistant city attorney for the City of Eugene, Oregon, in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Miller violated plaintiff’s due process rights when he advised the City not to renew plaintiff’s contracts with the City. Plaintiff, DePaul Industries, is a qualified nonprofit agency for individuals with disabilities (QRF) under an Oregon law that requires cities to contract with QRFs in certain circumstances. DePaul alleged that it held a clearly DEPAUL INDUSTRIES V. MILLER 3 established constitutionally protected property interest in two 12-month security-service contracts with the City. But in 2016, the City decided to modify its security services by requiring that the security service employees be armed and decided not to renew the contracts. The panel held that no court has considered DePaul’s novel argument that the Oregon QRF statute created a protected property interest in city contracts. Nor does the QRF statute on its face definitively resolve this question in DePaul’s favor. DePaul had not provided any precedent addressing Oregon’s QRF statute or anything closely related. While a case need not be “directly on point” to put the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate, all of the cases relied on by DePaul and the district court were too far from “on point.” There was no precedent clear enough that every reasonable official would interpret the QRF statute as creating a protected property interest in DePaul’s annual contracts with the City. DePaul also pointed to no Oregon cases considering whether the QRF statute allows the City to end a contract if it seeks new services, such as armed security. DePaul’s asserted interest was thus not clearly established, and Miller was entitled to qualified immunity.
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.