Sexton
Sexton v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Sexton appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claims and Defendants cross-appeal the district court’s denial of attorneys fees. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here.
1. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sexton’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the Defendants intended to deprive Sexton of his First Amendment right to petition the government by retaliating against him for his prior assertion of claims. A public employee’s litigation must involve a matter of public concern in order to be protected by the Petition Clause. Rendish v. City of Tacoma, 123 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 1997). Sexton’s prior litigation only involved his individual personnel disputes and grievances; it did not involve matters of public concern. Thus, his § 1983 claim is not legally viable. Roe v. City & County of San Francisco, 109 F.3d 578, 585 (9th Cir.1997). Absent an underlying constitutional violation, Sexton’s § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process also fail. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 270-71 , 114 S.Ct. 807 , 127 L.Ed.2d 114…