Antoinette Lawrence v. United States

76 F.3d 387 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Antoinette LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-16296. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 6, 1995. Decided Jan. 25, 1996. 1 Before: GOODWIN and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, KING, District Judge * . 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Plaintiff Antoinette Lawrence appeals the dismissal of her slander action, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the original defendant, Myron Flo, was not entitled to immunity because he was not acting within the scope of his employment as a HUD employee. Lawrence also appeals the denial of her request for additional discovery to look for information which might prove that Myron Flo was not acting within the scope of his employment when he made a negative comment about Lawrence to a news medium. 4 We review the district court's determination that an employee was acting within the scope of his federal office…