Blantz v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 11-56525 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against the CDCR and others after she was terminated from her independent contractor position as a nurse and was unable to find other work within the CDCR. The court held that a state agency did not create constitutionally protected property interests for its independent contractors simply by instituting performance review procedures. Even assuming independent contractors could ever have constitutionally protected property interests in their positions, something more was required: either an affirmative grant of tenure or a guarantee from the government. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's federal deprivation of property claim where her orientation documents did not contain any such assurances. The court also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's federal deprivation of liberty claim where her liberty interest was in her profession as a nurse, not her placement with a particular employer. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Defendant Hill where plaintiff's allegations concerning him were conclusory and implausible on their face. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend and the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law which alleged that plaintiff was terminated without explanation from her independent contractor position as a nurse for the California prison medical care system and given negative job references that effectively barred her from further employment within the system. The panel agreed with the district court that plaintiff did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in her independent contractor position. The panel held that a state agency does not create protected property interests for its independent contractors simply by instituting performance review procedures. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s federal deprivation of liberty claim, determining that plaintiff had not alleged that she was unable to find work as a nurse, only that she was unable to obtain work with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and that this was insufficient to trigger the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The panel affirmed the dismissal of the state law claims against Terry Hill, the former Chief Medical Officer for the Receiver of the California prison medical care system, determining that plaintiff’s allegations concerning Hill were conclusory and implausible on their face.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.