Mark Eilrich v. Bernard J. Remas

Good Law
839 F.2d 630·1988 WL 10592·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1846
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 17, 198886-2940California2,973 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Appellant Mark Eilrich, a municipal police officer, was discharged by the City of Riverbank (“the City”) after making statements about a controversy within the police department to the Riverbank City Council. A city administrative hearing officer, in upholding Eilrich’s discharge, determined that the statements were not protected by the first amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, finding that collateral estoppel barred Eil-rich’s claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (1982). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1982). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The City discharged Eilrich on November 21,1984 in response to statements he made as a representative of the Riverbank Police Officer’s Association at a city council meeting. Eilrich was discharged for making the following statements, which were part of one speech delivered during the public business portion of the meeting:

1. “Chief Remas has recently commented in the local news media, in response to our publicly made unanimous ‘no confidence’ vote of his, ah, management practices, that it is his belief that the Riverbank…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.