Unpublished Disposition, 881 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1987)Annotate this Case
Monica A. VALLADARES, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted* July 25, 1989.Decided Aug. 8, 1989.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Valladares contends the district court's failure to hold a status conference in this matter pursuant to Local Rule 235-31 violates due process. Assuming arguendo Valladares has a constitutional right to a status conference, such a conference was held. On December 18, 1987 the district court convened a hearing, discussed the status of the litigation, ordered the U.S. Marshal's Office to serve process on the San Jose Unified School District, and scheduled an additional conference. Valladares appears to claim this did not qualify as a status conference because the District was not represented. This claim is without merit. The District did not appear because Valladares failed to serve a summons or copy of the complaint.
Valladares alleged the District fired her because she is not of "a favored race." She failed, however, to allege specific facts sufficient to establish the existence of a prima facie case of discrimination, and, indeed, admitted her job performance was not satisfactory to her employer. Dismissal of her Title VII claim with prejudice was therefore appropriate. See Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1987).
Valladares's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for deprivation of property without due process is also without merit. As a probationary employee she had no property rights in her job, and was not entitled to a hearing or other formal procedures before dismissal. California Education Code Secs. 44948, 44949 (West 1979 & Supp.1989) are not to the contrary. These sections apply only to certificated employees, and Valladares was a classified employee. See Cal.Educ.Code Secs. 45305, 45340-45349 (West 1979 & Supp.1989).
Since dismissal was proper, Villadares's complaint that she was denied her right to discovery and to a jury trial are meritless.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)
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
Local Rule 235-3 provides in pertinent part: "Within 120 days of the filing of the complaint ..., the assigned judge shall hold a status or scheduling conference."