Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roybal v. Toppenish School District

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

September 20, 2017

Robert Roybal, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Toppenish School District; John Cerna, Superintendent, Defendants-Appellants.

          Submitted August 28, 2017 Seattle, Washington

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Argued and D.C. No. 1:14-cv-03092-SMJ

          Jerry J. Moberg (argued) and James E. Baker, Jerry Moberg & Associates P.S., Ephrata, Washington, for Defendants-Appellants.

          Kevan Tino Montoya (argued) and Tyler M. Hinkley, Montoya Hinckley PLLC, Yakima, Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

          Before: Michael Daly Hawkins and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges, and Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, [*] District Judge.

         SUMMARY[**]

         Civil Rights

         On interlocutory appeal in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the panel reversed the district court's order denying qualified immunity to defendants on plaintiff's due process claim, and dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the district court's order denying qualified immunity to defendants on plaintiff's First Amendment claim.

         Plaintiff, a former school principal, alleged that the Toppenish School District reduced his salary without due process and retaliated against him for speaking to an attorney about his performance evaluation.

         The panel held plaintiff had a protected property interest under Washington State law in the salary he received as a principal. The panel held, however, that the School District was not required under federal law to provide plaintiff with a predeprivation probable cause hearing pursuant to Washington Revised Code § 28.405.300. The panel noted that federal due process does not necessarily entitle a plaintiff to the same procedures provided by state law. In this case, the state-created protections reached beyond those guaranteed by federal law. The panel held that pursuant to Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), plaintiff received all the process due to him when he twice received notice that the District was reassigning him and was provided with opportunities to be heard in his own defense.

         The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction over the district court's order denying qualified immunity as to the First Amendment claim because the district court had found genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the claim. The panel held, therefore, that the issue of whether the School District violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights was categorically unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. Moreover, the panel determined that the First Amendment retaliation claim was not "inextricably intertwined" with the due process claim such that the panel could exercise pendent jurisdiction to review it.

          OPINION

          HAWKINS, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

         In this interlocutory appeal, the Toppenish School District ("the District") and its Superintendent, John Cerna ("Cerna") (collectively, "Toppenish"), appeal the denial of qualified immunity and adverse summary judgment grant in Robert Roybal's ("Roybal") 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Roybal, a former principal in the District, claims the District reduced his salary without due process and retaliated against him for speaking to an attorney about his performance evaluation. The district court denied Cerna qualified immunity, determining Toppenish violated due process and that genuine issues of material fact existed whether Toppenish retaliated against Roybal for his speech. We conclude the district court erred in holding Toppenish violated due process by failing to comply with procedures required under state law. We further conclude we lack jurisdiction at this stage to review the denial of qualified immunity as to Roybal's First Amendment retaliation claim.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         A. Factual Background

         The District employed Roybal as a principal beginning in the 2005-06 school year. Roybal held that position, at two district schools, through the 2011-12 school year. Prior to the 2012-13 school year, Cerna reassigned Roybal to work as an assistant principal at a different school. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.