Haas

MEMORANDUM *

The district court properly granted summary judgment to the City of Tucson on Haas’s due process claim. The Civil Service Commission (“CSC”) is a separate legal entity which was not named in the suit, and Haas has presented no proof that the CSC acts as an agent of the City when it conducts civil termination hearings. See Salt River Valley Water Users’ Assoc. v. Giglio, 113 Ariz. 190 , 549 P.2d 162 , 167 (1976) (in banc) (“A party asserting an agency relationship has the burden of proving it.”).

The district court also properly granted summary judgment with respect to Haas’s First Amendment retaliation claim. A claimant must show that his conduct is protected and that it was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant’s decision. Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe County, 69 F.3d 321 , 334 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 , 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)). In considering whether particular speech is constitutionally protected, we balance the “interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the [City], as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of…