777 Fed.Appx. 245 (9th Cir. 2019), 18-55253, Ryan v. Putnam
|Citation:||777 Fed.Appx. 245|
|Party Name:||Timothy RYAN, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brant PUTNAM, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Thomas Michael Brown, Esquire, Kenneth P. White, Brown, White & Newhouse LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant John Joseph Manier, Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt LLP, Encino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees|
|Judge Panel:||Before: OWENS, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||September 18, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted September 11, 2019 Pasadena, California
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Thomas Michael Brown, Esquire, Kenneth P. White, Brown, White & Newhouse LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
John Joseph Manier, Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt LLP, Encino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-05752-R-RAO
Before: OWENS, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Timothy Ryan, a doctor at Harbor-UCLA hospital, alleges that he discovered fraudulent conduct at the hospital and eventually reported that misconduct to law enforcement authorities. As alleged in the complaint, doctors at the hospital retaliated with an adverse employment action, initiating disciplinary proceedings, voting to revoke his staff privileges, and giving him notice of intent to suspend, all of which affected his ability to secure future employment. Dr. Ryan sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The district court dismissed his claim at the pleading stage, holding that the doctors were entitled to qualified immunity. We reverse.
"To be ‘clearly established, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ " Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800, 824 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). "To determine whether a constitutional right has been clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, we must survey the legal landscape and examine those cases that are most like the instant case." Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review de novo a determination that government officials are entitled to qualified immunity. Ass’n for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP