Hyland

Hyland v. Wonder

Good Law
117 F.3d 405·97 Daily Journal DAR 8074·1997 WL 345966·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 15237·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4944
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 25, 1997No. 95-15533California6,382 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Boochever, J.

Lanrie Hyland, a former volunteer juvenile probation worker, appeals the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , which alleged that government officials violated his First Amendment rights when they retaliated against him for his criticism of conditions and management at San Francisco’s Juvenile Hall.

FACTS

The following facts are drawn from the parties’ statement of undisputed facts unless otherwise specified.

Lanrie Hyland worked as a special assistant to Dennis Sweeney, the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer (“CJPO”) at the Juvenile Probation Department of the City and County of San Francisco (“JPD”), from May 1987 to February 24, 1989. During the relevant time, Judge Daniel Hanlon was the presiding judge of the Superior Court, and Judge Roy Wonder was the supervising judge of the Juvenile Court. Sweeney reported directly to Judge Wonder.

Hyland was a volunteer during most of his time at the JPD. Hyland worked for pay for eight months under grants and thereafter worked without pay for fourteen months. Hyland’s identification card identified him as “Special Assistant to the Chief Probation Officer.” He had his own desk, phone,…

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.