Timothy G. Twomey v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, Ed Doonan John Benbow, Chief Deputy Louis Blanas, Undersheriff Glen Craig

Ninth Circuit

Timothy G. Twomey v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, Ed Doonan John Benbow, Chief Deputy Louis Blanas, Undersheriff Glen Craig

142 F.3d 445, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 15513, 1998 WL 152737

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 1998

Docket97-15287

StatusUnpublished

This text of 142 F.3d 445 (Timothy G. Twomey v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, Ed Doonan John Benbow, Chief Deputy Louis Blanas, Undersheriff Glen Craig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Timothy G. Twomey v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, Ed Doonan John Benbow, Chief Deputy Louis Blanas, Undersheriff Glen Craig, 142 F.3d 445, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 15513, 1998 WL 152737 (9th Cir. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

142 F.3d 445

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Timothy G. TWOMEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Ed Doonan; John
Benbow, Chief Deputy; Louis Blanas, Undersheriff;
Glen Craig Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-15287.
DC No. CV-95-00925-GEB.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

.
Argued and Submitted March 10th, 1998.
Decided April 2, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding.

Before CANBY and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges and WEINER** District Judge.

MEMORANDUM*

Appellant's bare allegation that his supervisor was "dishonest," with no stated relation to the supervisor's conduct of his official duties or any matter of public policy, is not of public concern and thus will not support a First Amendment retaliation claim. See McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1983). His due process claim fails because the California Peace Officers' Bill of Rights, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 3301-3310, does not place substantive limits on the State's authority to transfer an officer and thus does not generate a property interest. See Stiesberg v. California, 80 F.3d 353, 357 (9th Cir.1996).1 The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

**

The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation

1

Appellant failed to brief and thus abandoned on appeal his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12100

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

142 F.3d 445

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Timothy G. TWOMEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Ed Doonan; John
Benbow, Chief Deputy; Louis Blanas, Undersheriff;
Glen Craig Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-15287.
DC No. CV-95-00925-GEB.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

.
Argued and Submitted March 10th, 1998.
Decided April 2, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding.

Before CANBY and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges and WEINER** District Judge.

MEMORANDUM*

Appellant's bare allegation that his supervisor was "dishonest," with no stated relation to the supervisor's conduct of his official duties or any matter of public policy, is not of public concern and thus will not support a First Amendment retaliation claim. See McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1983). His due process claim fails because the California Peace Officers' Bill of Rights, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 3301-3310, does not place substantive limits on the State's authority to transfer an officer and thus does not generate a property interest. See Stiesberg v. California, 80 F.3d 353, 357 (9th Cir.1996).1 The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

**

The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation

1

Appellant failed to brief and thus abandoned on appeal his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12100

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F.3d 445, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 15513, 1998 WL 152737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-g-twomey-v-sacramento-county-sheriffs-department-ed-doonan-john-ca9-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack