McCOMB v. CREHAN, 320 Fed.Appx. 507 (9th Cir. 2009)
Brittany McCOMB; Marianna McComb; Constance J. McComb,Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Gretchen CREHAN; Roy Thompson; ChristopherSefcheck; Walt Rulffes, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 07-16194.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Argued and Submitted March 10, 2009.
Filed March 20, 2009.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]
Anand Agneshwar, Arnold Porter LLP, New York, NY, Douglas H. Clark, Las Vegas, NV, James J. Knicely, Knicely Associates P.C., Williamsburg, VA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
C.W. Hoffman, Jr., Legal Department, Joshua H. Reisman, Ballard Spahr Andrews Ingersoll, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-00852-RCJ/PAL.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HUG and BEA, Circuit Judges:
MEMORANDUM[fn*]
[fn*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal, Knox v.Southwest Airlines,Page 508124 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1997), and can consider the merits of defendants' arguments, Hydride v. Hunter,500 F.3d 978, 986 (9th Cir. 2007).
Defendants did not violate McComb's free speech and free exercise rights by preventing her from making a proselytizing graduation speech. Cole v. Oroville Union High SchoolDistrict, 228 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2000); Lassondev. Pleasanton Unified School District, 320 F.3d 979, 983
(9th Cir. 2003). Nor did they violate McComb's right to equal protection; they did not allow other graduation speakers to proselytize.
REVERSED and REMANDED for dismissal of the claims that arethe subject of this appeal.