JOHN NICHOLS, AKA Jack Nichols v. County of Sacramento;

10-16241Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 7, 2012

Full text

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN NICHOLS, AKA Jack Nichols,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16241
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02759-GEB-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
John Nichols, aka Jack Nichols, appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
retaliated against him for reporting corruption in the County of Sacramento
FILED
MAR 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16241 2
Building Inspection Unit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Huppert v. City of Pittsburg, 574 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nichols’s First
Amendment claim because Nichols failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether his protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in his
termination. See id. at 702.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nichols’s claim of
retaliation for whistleblowing, in violation of California Labor Code section
1102.5, because Nichols failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether there was a “causal link” between his protected activity and termination.
Patten v. Grant Joint Union High Sch. Dist., 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 113, 117 (Ct. App.
2005).
Nichols’s remaining contentions, including that the district court did not
consider the evidence he submitted, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.