Miller v. Clark County School District

Good Law
182 F. App'x 673
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 18, 2006No. 04-16586; D.C. No. CV-02-01641-JCMCalifornia442 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Elizabeth Fraser, Edward Goldman and William Hoffman appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to dismiss Scott Miller’s § 1983 action on the basis of qualified immunity. We affirm.

Goldman and Hoffman first argue that Miller’s first amended complaint fails to allege action on their part in violation of his First Amendment rights. Assuming this bears on qualified immunity, it is not so; ¶ IX, incorporated by reference into the remaining causes of action, avers that Goldman and Hoffman supervised and coordinated the process by which Miller was terminated; 1 ¶ XIV alleges that Miller’s in-class speech was a substantial factor in Goldman and Hoffman’s decision to suspend and discharge him; and ¶ XXI states that Goldman and Hoffman assisted in Fraser’s efforts to retaliate against Miller on account of pursuing formation of a TAC committee.

Fraser, Goldman and Hoffman contend that qualified immunity should be conferred because the Pickering balancing test is implicated. Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Township High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). To the extent they posit this is always so as a matter of law, the argument…

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.