Behn v. City of Phoenix

Full title: Richard BEHN, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 16, 2001

16 F. App'x 800 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

16 Fed.Appx. 800 (9th Cir. 2001) Richard BEHN, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, et al., Defendants--Appellees. No. 01-15983. D.C. No. CV-00-00085-EHC. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 16, 2001

Submitted August 13, 2001 ^*.

* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

City employee brought action challenging constitutionality of city's mutual respect/zero tolerance policy and general harassment policy. Employee moved for preliminary injunction barring enforcement of policies. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Earl H. Carroll, J., denied motion. Employee appealed. The Court of Appeals held that denial of motion for preliminary injunction was not abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

This appeal from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction comes to us

Page 801.

under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm. ¹

1 The Clerk shall file the Supplemental Excerpts of Record received from appellant on August 7, 2001.

Richard Behn, an employee of the City of Phoenix, Arizona, appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the City's Mutual Respect/Zero Tolerance Policy and its General Harassment Policy (collectively "the Policies"), in Behn's action seeking a declaration that the Policies are unconstitutional. The district court granted in part a motion by Behn for preliminary injunctive relief from "gag orders" issued against him by agents of the City pursuant to the Policies. Behn does not appeal that decision.

Considering the record as a whole, including the fact that the district court mitigated potential harm pending trial by granting in part Behn's motion for preliminary injunctive relief from the "gag orders," we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Policies. See generally Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113, 1117-19 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (clarifying the standard and scope of review for preliminary injunctions).

AFFIRMED.