Tafoya

MEMORANDUM **

Santos and Laurie Tafoya appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on each of their claims. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1. The Section 1983 Claim.

Santos Tafoya contends that he was dismissed by defendants in retaliation for protected behavior — court testimony in support of some other Sheriffs Department officers who sued the department alleging discrimination. Since such speech' is constitutionally protected, dismissal in retaliation is unlawful. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 593 , 118 S.Ct. 1584 , 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998).

In order to prevail, Tafoya must prove that his testimony was a substantial motivating factor in his subsequent termination. Huskey v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir.2000). He was ter *717 minated, however, more than six years after his testimony. Furthermore, he offers no substantial evidence of any causal link between his testimony and his termination.

In an effort to establish such a link, Tafoya alleges a pattern of unsubstantiated discipline following his trial testimony. He also concedes, however, that only two months after his testimony Sheriff…