Handte

MEMORANDUM ***

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants. We affirm.

To prevail on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim of First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that he or she engaged in protected speech; (2) that the employer took ‘adverse employment action’; and (3) that his or her speech was a ‘substantial or motivating’ factor for the adverse employment action.” Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2003).

Handte’s off-duty reports of various instances of Kirkland’s alleged mismanagement of the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) to the Governor and Attorney General’s Office is protected speech. His statements are of public concern because they are relevant to evaluating the NHP’s performance. See Ulrich v. City & County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 978 (9th Cir.2002).

Handte failed to point to specific evidence Defendants Jim Struemph, Jim Farmer, or David Hosmer took retaliatory adverse employment action within the applicable two-year statute of limitations period. 1 See Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam). Struemph telling Handte’s representative that Handte was…