Eugene Murguia v. Jack Palmer, 685 F. App'x 534

Murguia, a Nevada state employee, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed the dismissal.
The court applied the Eng five-factor framework for public employee First Amendment retaliation claims, which requires, as a threshold, that the employee spoke on a matter of public concern.
The district court found, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, that neither of Murguia’s two alleged instances of speech implicated a matter of public concern because they concerned individual personnel disputes/grievances.
Because the speech was not on a matter of public concern, it was not protected by the First Amendment and Murguia’s claim failed as a matter of law.
The panel unanimously affirmed and each party was to bear its own costs; the disposition is unpublished under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Murguia’s speech involved a matter of public concern	Murguia contended his statements were protected speech on matters of public concern	State argued the statements were personal personnel grievances not mattering to the public	Held: Speech addressed individual personnel disputes, not public concern; no First Amendment protection
Whether Murguia spoke as a private citizen rather than as an employee	Murguia implied his comments were as a private citizen raising public issues	State maintained comments were employment-related conduct	Not reached after failure on public concern; prima facie elements not met
Whether the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in adverse action	Murguia asserted the adverse action was motivated by his speech	State denied retaliation or justified action on other grounds	Not reached; failure on public concern fatal to claim
Whether the state could justify or would have taken the action absent the speech	Murguia argued state lacked justification	State argued it had adequate justification and would have acted regardless	Not reached due to failure of plaintiff to establish protected speech

Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen, 305 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of appellate review: de novo)
Huppert v. City of Pittsburg, 574 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2009) (balances public employee speech against employer efficiency interests)
Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (Eng factors requirement and precedential context)
Coomes v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. No. 15, 816 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2016) (failure to meet any Eng factor is fatal to claim)
Turner v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 788 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) (speech involving individual personnel disputes typically not public concern)
Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) (sets forth the five-factor test for public employee First Amendment claims)