Calkins v. Brown

84 F. App'x 869

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 18, 2003
• Docket: No. 02-35908
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

Craig Calkins appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his § 1983 First Amendment claim and his state-law whistleblower and wrongful discharge claims. We affirm the district court.

Calkins’s § 1983 claim fails because the record does not establish a causal nexus between protected speech, if there was any, and his demotion.¹ The whistleblower action is barred because it was not brought within the 90-day statute of limitations, as required by the 1999 version of Oregon Revised Statutes which governs this case.² The wrongful discharge claim fails because Calkins does not state a prima facie case,³ and therefore we need not decide whether Draper v. Astoria School District applies.⁴

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1 . Coszalterv. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 977 (9th Cir.2003).

2 . Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 659.510, 659.530 (1999), superseded by Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 659A.203, 659A.215; see Or. Rev. Stat § 659A.215 (note).

3 . McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 901 P.2d 841, 851-57 (Or. 1995).

4 . Draper v. Astoria Sch. Dist. No. 1C, 995 F.Supp. 1122, 1126-32 (D.Or.1998), overruled in part by Rabkin v. Or. Health. Sciences Univ., 350 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.2003).