Opinion

Nunez v. City of Los Angeles

  • 147 F.3d 867
  • 1998 WL 289724
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Jun 5, 1998
Status
Published
Author
Farris
On the bench
Farris, Fernandez, Scannlain
Cited by
250 cases

explaining that “[t]o establish a substantive due process claim, a plaintiff must ... show a government deprivation of life, liberty, or property[,]” and that “[i]n California, the terms and conditions of public employment are generally fixed by statute ... not by contract (even if one is involved)” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that “[t]o establish a substantive due process claim, a plaintiff must ... show a government deprivation of life, liberty, or property[,]” and that “[i]n California, the terms and conditions of public employment are generally fixed by statute ... not by contract (even if one is involved)” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
  • holding on summary judgment that evidence that the plaintiff “was bad-mouthed and verbally threatened” was insufficient to establish an adverse employment action, and that “[i]t would be the height of irony, indeed, if mere speech, in response to speech, could constitute a First Amendment violation”
  • holding that “threats and harsh words are insufficient” for an adverse 4 employment action
  • explaining “[t]here is no general liberty interest in being free from capricious government action.... Otherwise, as then-judge Stevens explained, ‘every time a citizen [i]s affected by government action, he would have a federal right to judicial review.’ ”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

FARRIS, Circuit Judge,

Concurring:

I concur. The result is dictated by ample authority that the plaintiffs have no property interest in a promotion under the present facts. Despite this authority, the defendants should not read the opinion as giving them carte blanche to ignore established procedures where substantial interests are at stake. This is simply a matter to which the federal substantive due process clause does not speak.

I am satisfied that the facts of this action did not warrant recovery under the due process clause. Nonetheless, I concur with the caution that the opinion not be misconstrued.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.