Jayendra Shah v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
472 F. App'x 451
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 16, 201210-56284California291 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must show that the defendant “deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities” under color of state law. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and indications of alteration removed). A local government’s retaliation against a plaintiff for suing the local government may deprive the plaintiff of his First Amendment right to petition the courts. Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310 , 1314 (9th Cir.1989). A public employee’s litigation, however, “must involve a matter of public concern in order to be protected by either the Petition Clause or the Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” Rendish v. City of Tacoma, 123 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2488, 2493-2501 , 180 L.Ed.2d 408 (2011).

Plaintiffs litigation involved his private employment grievances, not matters of public concern. Additionally, Plaintiffs complaint does not adequately allege that his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.