From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Church v. Berry

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 25, 2008
275 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 05-17121.

Argued and Submitted April 17, 2008.

Filed April 25, 2008.

Terri Keyser-Cooper, Esq., Law Office of Terry Keyser-Cooper, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Donald L. Christensen, Esq., Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-000708-LRH/RAM.

Before: TROTT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and HOGAN, District Judge.

The Honorable Michael R. Hogan, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Plaintiff-Appellant Jeffrey Church brought suit against the City of Reno, Charles McNeely, Jerry Hoover, Ondra Berry, and Ronald Donnelly for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of Nevada law, bad faith discharge, emotional distress, and First Amendment retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of each Defendant on all claims. Church appeals the district court's order only as to the First Amendment retaliation claim. The parties are familiar with the facts, thus we proceed to the law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Moreau v. Air France, 356 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). "Our review is governed by the same standard used by the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)." Pool v. VanRheen, 297 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002).

To succeed on his First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983, Church "must show (1) that he . . . engaged in protected speech; (2) that [his] employer took adverse employment action; and (3) that his . . . speech was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse employment action." Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We agree with the district court that Church carried his burden as to elements one and two. However, we agree also with the district court that Church did not carry his burden as to element three — he did not provide a nexus between the protected speech and any adverse employment action.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Church v. Berry

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 25, 2008
275 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Church v. Berry

Case Details

Full title:Jeffrey D. CHURCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ondra BERRY; Richard Donnelly…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 25, 2008

Citations

275 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Church v. City of Reno

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, and we affirmed. Church v. Berry, 275 F.…