Legal Opinion · Dissent

Donald L. Meek v. County of Riverside, and Albert J. Wojcik, Judge, Riverside Municipal Court Rodney Walker, Judge, Riverside Municipal Court

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 24, 1999No. 97-56531Published

1DissentFerguson, Circuit Judge

I dissent from the majority’s disposition of this case for one simple reason: Donald Meek was not constructively fired. Therefore, he cannot maintain a § 1983 action in federal district court, and we must dismiss his case.

In § 1983 actions, the preliminary focus must be whether or not the alleged wrongful act involved state action. Ouzts v. Maryland Nat’l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (1974) (en banc). If it does not, then we as federal courts do not have jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), and we need not even pass on the immunity issues reached in the majority’s opinion.

In § 1983…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Carole WATSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE CO., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  3. Grady Carroll Ouzts v. Maryland National Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
  4. Meek v. County of RiversideDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API