JAMES HOUSTON V. YONCALLA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3, No. 16-35558 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES MARTIN HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-35558 D.C. No. 6:13-cv-01318-AA v. MEMORANDUM* YONCALLA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 32, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. James Martin Houston appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Houston’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, is denied. Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Houston’s First Amendment retaliation claims because Houston failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he engaged in speech as a private citizen on a matter of public concern. See Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim as a public employee, plaintiff must demonstrate that he spoke on a matter of public concern and did so as a private citizen); see also Desrochers v. City of San Bernardino, 572 F.3d 703, 708-09 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Houston’s claim alleging that defendants restricted his free speech in violation of the First Amendment by preventing him from attending Yoncalla School District’s and Douglas Education Service District’s board meetings because Houston failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that he was barred from any meetings. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-35558
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.
