cause under collective bargaining agreement "have a sufficient property interest in continued employment to warrant due process protection prior to termination" (quoting Storrs v. Municipality of Anchorage, 721 P.2d 1146, 1148 (Alaska 1986))); see also Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924, 928-29, 117 S.Ct. 1807, 138 L.Ed.2d 120 (1997) ("[We have previously held that public employees who can be discharged only for cause have a constitutionally protected property interest in their tenure and cannot be fired without due process."). Jurgens also asserts that he was only a few months away from vesting in the public employees' retirement system. 51 . DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp., 63 P.3d 272, 280 n. 26 (Alaska 2003); see also Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701-02, 96 S.Ct 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976) (<HOLDING>). 52 . We therefore reject Jurgens's argument
holding that a prison grievance procedure is not a substantive right and does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment recognizing first amendment and fourteenth amendment interests in inmate correspondence holding that damage to reputation alone does not trigger due process protections for purposes of 42 usc  1983 holding that reputation alone does not implicate any liberty or property interests sufficient to trigger procedural protections of fourteenth amendment recognizing that a state courts adjudication  of private rights is not sufficient state action in the sense necessary to implicate constitutional protections