165 F.3d 35 (9th Cir. 1998), 97-55613, Kamper v. Mountain Empire Unified School Dist.

Docket Nº:97-55613.
Citation:165 F.3d 35
Party Name:Lowell Fred KAMPER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOUNTAIN EMPIRE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; William Wong; Pamela Dayhoff; Linda Keating; Does, 1-40 inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:November 20, 1998
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 35

165 F.3d 35 (9th Cir. 1998)

Lowell Fred KAMPER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MOUNTAIN EMPIRE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; William Wong; Pamela Dayhoff; Linda Keating; Does, 1-40 inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-55613.

No. CV-96-01308-BTM

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 20, 1998

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KOZINSKI, KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Under section 44341(b) of the California Education Code, "every applicant for a credential or for the renewal of a credential shall be deemed to have given his or her consent for the securing of, and disclosure of, information to the [state credentialing] commission for the sole purpose of ascertaining the moral character and true identity of the holder of [the] credential." Wong merely complied with the credentialing commission's order to produce employment-related information concerning Kamper. As Kamper neither challenges the commission's authority to obtain this information nor alleges that the information was made public by Wong or the school district, Kamper has failed to show any violation of his constitutional right to privacy.

Kamper has been deprived of no liberty or property interest. The school district's disclosures to the credentialing commission were not made in the course of Kamper's termination, see Campanelli v. Bockrath, 100 F.3d 1476, 1482 (9th Cir.1996), and his transfer did not so stigmatize him as to impinge on his liberty interests, see Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank, 650 F.2d 1093, 1101 (9th Cir.1981). His transfer was also not a cognizable property loss giving rise to a due process claim. See Stiesberg v. California, 80 F.3d 353, 356 (9th Cir.1996); Clark v. Yosemite Community College Dist., 785 F.2d 781, 789-90 (9th Cir.1986). Nor did Kamper have...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP