United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3283

___________

Robert I. Greenberg, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District 

City of St. Paul; Christopher Coleman; * of Minnesota.

Jerry Blakey; Pat Harris; Jim Reiter; *

Dan Bonstrom, (all in their personal * [UNPUBLISHED]

and official capacities), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 15, 2003

Filed: May 21, 2003

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

To protest a highway project, Robert I. Greenberg pushed a pie in the face of

a Minnesota state senator. Greenberg was found guilty in state court of disturbing or

intimidating the legislature. The state courts rejected Greenberg’s claims that the

First Amendment protected his conduct. Greenberg later applied for the executive

director position of the Payne/Phalen District 5 Council, a community organization

established by the St. Paul City Council. After the District Council voted to hire
*

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota. 

-2-

Greenberg, the City Council voted to suspend funding to the District Council pending

an investigation of the process surrounding Greenberg’s hire based on allegations that

Greenberg’s conviction had not been disclosed to the District Council. The District

Council then voted to rescind its motion to offer the job to Greenberg, and the City

Council repealed its suspension of funding. Greenberg brought this action against the

City of St. Paul and the five members of the City Council who voted to suspend

funding to the District Council. Greenberg claimed they violated his rights to

procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, his rights under the

Privileges and Immunities Clause, and his rights to free speech. Greenberg also

asserted a state law claim of intentional interference with an employment contract. 

The district court*

 granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court

concluded Greenberg’s § 1983 claims failed because he failed to show he was denied

a right under the Constitution or any federal statute. Specifically, the court held

Greenberg’s procedural due process claim failed because there was no employment

relationship between Greenberg and the District Council creating a property interest

and no stigmatization infringing on Greenberg’s liberty interest in future employment.

The district court concluded Greenberg’s substantive due process claim failed

because occupational liberty is not a protected right under substantive due process.

Greenberg’s equal protection claim failed because he provided no evidence about the

identities of any similarly situated persons or about instances of disparate treatment.

Because Greenberg did not argue the Privileges and Immunities Clause should be

expanded to include the right to engage in employment, Greenberg’s claim under the

Clause likewise failed. Greenberg’s First Amendment claim, that his right to free

speech based on his earlier “statement” of pushing the pie into the Senator’s face was

violated by the suspension of funding to the District Council, was collaterally

estopped by the earlier state court holding that Greenberg’s conduct was not protected
-3-

by the First Amendment. Last, the district court rejected Greenberg’s interference

with contractual relations claim brought under state law because he failed to establish

he had an employment contract. 

On appeal, Greenberg argues there was an employment contract because he had

drafted postdated, job-related memoranda before the District Council revoked its

offer. We agree with the district court that Greenberg had not started performing his

job. As for Greenberg’s other claims, we have carefully reviewed Greenberg’s

arguments, the record, and the controlling law, and conclude the district court

properly rejected them. We have nothing to add to the district court’s explanation,

and thus summarily affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.