Graham v. American Golf Corp., 030411 FED9, 09-56769
|Party Name:||JACK W. GRAHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 04, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted February 15, 2011[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:09-cv-04794-RGK-AJW.
Jack W. Graham appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his civil rights and antitrust action challenging a policy that permits only American Golf Corporation ("AGC") employees to teach golf at certain public golf courses.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Graham's First Amendment claim because the golf courses are nonpublic fora and the policy is reasonable and viewpoint neutral. See Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983) (on public property that is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication, the state may restrict speech so long as the restriction is reasonable and viewpoint neutral).
The district court properly dismissed Graham's equal protection claim because he does not have a fundamental right to work as a golf instructor, and there is a rational basis for the policy. See Madarang v. Bermudes, 889 F.2d 251, 253 (9th Cir. 1990) ("[T]he right to pursue a calling is not a fundamental right for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Graham's Sherman Act claim because he failed to allege "a substantial effect...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP