Bartlett-May

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants are six former employees of the Otay Water District who claim that their employment was terminated in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The district court ruled that because the plaintiffs were at-will employees of the Water District, they do not have a protected interest in continued employment and dismissed the complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

In California, the terms of public employment are regulated by statute. See Miller v. State of California, 18 Cal.3d 808, 813 , 135 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 557 P.2d 970 (1977) (“[I]t is well settled in California that public employment is not held by contract but by statute and that, insofar as the duration of such employment is concerned, no employee has a vested contractual right to continue in employment beyond the time or contrary to the terms and conditions fixed by law.”). The relevant statute in this case is California Water Code § 71362, which establishes that the appellants’ employment with the Water District was at-will. Cal. Wat.Code § 71362. As at-will employees, appellants do not have a protected property interest in their job. Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995…