# Nunez v. City of Los Angeles

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 5, 1998 · 147 F.3d 867

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6970441

## Case

- **Full name:** David NUNEZ, Alex Gomez, and Clyde Anthony Vlaskamp v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief Willie Williams, Captain James Tatreau, Captain Lee Carter, Sergeant Gary Grubbs
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 5, 1998
- **Citations:** 147 F.3d 867; 1998 WL 289724
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Farris
- **Judges:** Farris, Fernandez, Scannlain
- **Cited by:** 250 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6970441

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 (ev…
- 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 Fir…
- 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.’ ”
- concluding plaintiffs did not have property interest in promotion procedures that merely “outlined] relevant considerations” and did not significantly limit the discretion of the decisionmaker

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6970441. Public record. Not legal advice.