Michael Boronda v. Sara Moye
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Michael Boronda appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Josephine County (the County) and Sara Moye. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the County and Moye on Boronda’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for First Amendment retaliation. We agree with Boronda that he was a private citizen at the time he made demands on the County and Moye requested that he be barred from undertaking construction work in certain County offices. Cf. Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health, 632 F.3d 1091, 1101-02 (9th Cir.2011). Applying the framework for First Amendment retaliation claims by private citizens, we conclude that Boronda failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Moye’s request was intended to chill Boronda’s speech, rather than to prevent him from having access to valuable and confidential County property and documents. See Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221 , 1232 (9th Cir.2006) (requiring the plaintiff to prove that the “desire to cause the chilling effect” was a “but-for cause of the defendant’s action”).