Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Michael Erwine v. Churchill County, Nevada, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 22-15358 · judgment March 7, 2023
Before the decision, about 2.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.
Question presented
Conflicting with Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 628 (1977), that a hearing is required if false and defamatory information is disseminated in connection with the termination of a public employee, the Ninth Circuit concluded in Blantz v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., Div. of Corr. Health Care Servs., 727 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir. 2013) that to state a viable “stigma-plus” procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must also show “effective exclusion” from a profession, meaning the stigmatizing statements effectively bar her from all employment in her field. The question presented is: To state a viable “stigma-plus” claim, must a plaintiff prove as a matter of fact “effective exclusion” from a chosen profession?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Luke Andrew Busby
Luke Andrew Busby, Ltd.
For respondent
Katherine Parks
Thorndal Armstrong, PC
Case
Subject area
Due Process (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Order
Order list, October 2, 2023 · Certiorari denied
Proceedings
- Oct 02 2023Petition DENIED.
- Jul 12 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
- Jun 27 2023Waiver of right of respondent Churchill County, Nevada, et al. to respond filed.
- Jun 01 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 5, 2023)