Eva Keiser v. Lake County Superior Court

369 F. App'x 846

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 5, 2010
• Docket: 08-15423, 08-16078
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Eva M. Reiser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging wrongful termination of her employment with the Lake County Superior Court in violation of state and federal law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), and grant of summary judgment, Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2007). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Reiser’s intentional misrepresentation claim because defendants enjoyed governmental immunity for exercising their discretion regarding personnel decisions. See Cal. Gov.Code § 820.2 (“[A] public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.”); Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2(b) (“[A] public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.”)

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Reiser’s due process claims because she failed to raise a triable issue as to whether she was provided with adequate due process prior or subsequent to her termination. See Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (pre-deprivation due process rights entitle certain public employees to notice and opportunity to be heard); see also Cal. Gov.Code § 71650(d)(2) (provisions of Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act do not apply to “confidential employees”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claims against the remaining defendant for failure to prosecute in light of Reiser’s unpreparedness to proceed at trial, the resulting prejudice to defendant, and the court’s need to manage its docket. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61.

We do not review any determinations of the district court regarding which Raiser failed to develop argument on appeal. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992) (issues raised in pro se litigant’s brief but not supported by argument are deemed waived).

Reiser’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.