Blantz v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
727 F.3d 917
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Blantz worked for the CDCR as an independent contractor nurse via NOAH; the CDCR paid NOAH, not Blantz, and NOAH could terminate the arrangement.
- Blantz was terminated from the CDCR placement in Dec. 2007 following a negative performance assessment by a CDCR auditor, with no prior notice or stated reasons to Blantz.
- Blantz later sought other CDCR positions but was told she had poor recommendations; the source of these recommendations is unknown.
- Blantz filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal court alleging due process and liberty/property deprivations; Hill was removed from the case; district court dismissed federal claims and remanded state law claims.
- The district court and this court assumed independent contractors might have a property interest but held that the documents Blantz received do not create a constitutionally protected entitlement; the liberty claim failed because Blantz was not barred from the entire nursing profession, only from employment with the CDCR; Hill was properly dismissed for lack of plausible personal involvement; leave to amend was not abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property interest in continued independent contractor position | Blantz claimed orientation documents created entitlement | Contract allows termination at will; no tenure | No constitutionally protected property interest; dismissal affirmed |
| Liberty interest from stigmatic job references | Stigmatizing references barred future nursing employment | Only CDCR employment is affected; not full exclusion from field | Not a due process liberty deprivation; dismissal affirmed |
| Hill's personal liability | Hill directed actions causing harm | Allegations are conclusory and implausible | Dismissed Hill claims for lack of plausible personal involvement |
| Leave to amend | Could allege other similar violations and Hill's knowledge | Proposed amendments would be conclusory | District court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests require a legitimate entitlement, not mere unilateral expectation)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) (tenure concepts may exist despite lack of formal tenure; due process depends on entitlement shape)
- Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) (tenure-like rights may arise from unwritten expectations or institutional practice)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claims, not mere conclusory statements)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading requires factual context to support plausibility)
- Portman v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898 (1993) (public employment at will; tenure requires statutory support or explicit rules)
- Llamas v. Butte Cmty. Coll. Dist., 238 F.3d 1123 (2001) (no liberty interest when barred from one public employer but not all opportunities)