Jensen

MEMORANDUM **

Duane Jensen appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his employer, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), in this civil rights action arising out of statements he made to an inmate and in an interview. We vacate and remand.

The district court determined that Jensen’s speech was a response to an inmate’s private query and was a private suggestion to report an instance of officer misconduct. However, since its decision, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Garcetti v. Ceballos, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1951 , 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). Ceballos reaffirms that the fact that an employee expresses his views privately at work, rather than publicly, is not dispositive. See also Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 , 387 n. 11, 107 S.Ct. 2891 , 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987) (“The private nature of the statement does not ... vitiate the status of the statement as addressing a matter of public concern.” (emphasis added)); Nunez v. Davis, 169 F.3d 1222, 1228 (9th Cir.1999) (“There is no legal requirement that a public employee’s speech be made public in order to constitute speech on a matter of public concern.”); Hyland v. Wonder, 972 F.2d 1129, 1138-39…