Blankenship

Blankenship v. McDonald

Good Law
176 F.3d 1192·99 Daily Journal DAR 4529·1999 WL 300747·1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 9066·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3520
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 14, 1999No. 97-35898California1,310 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Leavy, J.

This case requires us to decide whether a federal court reporter who has no effective remedies under the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”) 2 has an action for money damages, commonly called a Bivens action, 3 for alleged constitutional violations in the workplace. The plaintiff, Kathryn Blankenship, appeals the district court’s judgment of dismissal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

I.

Blankenship filed this action against the defendants, District Court Judge Alan A. McDonald and Court Clerk James Larsen, in their individual capacities. The allegations in the complaint are considered true for purposes of the motion to dismiss and may be summarized as follows:

Blankenship was appointed in 1985 as a court reporter for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. From 1985 to 1990, she worked in Spokane, Washington, and in 1990, she was transferred to Yakima, Washington in the same district. She worked throughout her employment as the official court reporter for Judge McDonald. James Larsen supervised the court reporters in Spokane and Yakima.

In July 1994, Blankenship was subpoenaed to testify in a former employee’s…

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.