Wong
Wong v. Board of Regents of the University of California
Opinion
Concurring Opinion
Beezer, J.
I concur in the result.
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Daniel Wong appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, arguing that the district court incorrectly concluded: (1) that Wong did not have a property interest in his supervisor position and layoff protection; and (2) that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 830 (9th Cir.2000). We determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant sub *515 stantive law. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).
To have a property interest in his supervisor classification and against layoff, Wong must have “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). That claim must arise from “existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” Id. Also of particular import is whether the…