Employment: Former police officer’s due process claims dismissed

Where the former officer failed to plead facts making his due process claims plausible, they were dismissed.

Background

Matthew A. Guzzetta, a former police officer for the Fairfax County Police Department, or FCPD, asserts the following claims against Fairfax County, Kevin Davis, and Todd Billeb: (1) a § 1983 claim against Fairfax County that he was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment (Count One); (2) a similar § 1983 claim against Davis and Billeb in their official and individual capacities (Count Two); (3) a state law constructive discharge claim against all defendants (Count Three); (4) a state law fraud claim against all defendants (Count Four); (5) a state law defamation per se claim (Count Five) and (6) a state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count Six). Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

Due process

Guzzetta brings a § 1983 claim for denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. To state such a claim, he must (1) demonstrate that a § 1983 claim is available against Fairfax County or Davis and Billeb in their official or individual capacities and (2) plausibly allege his procedural due process rights were violated.

Because the claims against Davis and Billeb in their official capacities are duplicative of the claim against Fairfax County, the court analyzes plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Davis and Billeb in Count Two as claims against Fairfax County as their employer. A municipality is liable only for the affirmative decisions of “final policymakers” of the municipality, and whether a particular official has “final policymaking authority” is a question of state law. Here, Guzzetta has merely alleged that Davis had decision-making, not policymaking, authority.

Guzzetta next alleges that Fairfax County “maintained a longstanding and widespread custom of denying due process rights to employees under IA investigation.” Even assuming that each of these complaints amounted to actual constitutional violations, Guzzetta alleges no facts to indicate that these constitutional violations were comparable in nature and purpose to his alleged treatment, that his particular claimed treatment was “widespread and recurrent” or that the policymakers had actual or constructive knowledge of any comparable conduct and failed to correct it due to their deliberate indifference. For these reasons, Guzzetta has not plausibly alleged an official policy or custom to establish municipal liability against Fairfax County for a Section 1983 claim.

In Count Two, Guzzetta brings the same procedural due process claim against Davis and Billeb in their individual capacities, alleging that “Defendants Davis and Billeb failed to provide him with due process in connection to their respective roles in Lt. Guzzetta’s demotion and subsequent constructive discharge related to allegations Lt. Guzzetta purportedly faced as a result of the IA investigation.” Defendants argue that Guzzetta fails to allege that state action deprived him of any claimed property interest because he gave notice of his retirement, and there are insufficient allegations that Guzzetta’s resignation was involuntary. The court agrees. Guzzetta has not plausibly alleged that his resignation was involuntary and that he had thereby experienced state deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest.

Guzzetta alleges that Davis and Billeb violated his procedural due process rights by depriving him of his liberty interest in his “good name” and “reputation,” and his ability to obtain future employment without a name-clearing hearing or other opportunity to challenge the “stigmatizing allegations” in his personnel records. But he does not allege what information in his PD-29 or personnel files is false. Plaintiff has also failed plausibly to allege that his retirement paperwork would be made available to others or published in some other manner. And given the circumstances surrounding his decision to retire, plaintiff has also failed to allege that the allegedly stigmatizing paperwork was “made in conjunction with his termination or demotion.”

Qualified immunity

Guzzetta fails to plausibly allege that defendants violated any clearly established constitutional right in light of his resignation. Therefore, the court finds that Davis and Billeb are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s claims against them.

Remaining claims

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are the sole basis for the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Because the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss granted.

Guzzetta v. Fairfax County, Case No. 1:25-cv-0346, Oct. 20, 2025. EDVA at Alexandria (Trenga). VLW 025-3-440. 19 pp.