Quantz

MEMORANDUM **

I.

1. Investigation

With respect to Quantz’s claim regarding the investigation of his prior conduct, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Even when considered in combination with Edwards’s public statement that Quantz was under investigation, neither the investigation nor its delay constituted an adverse employment action because it was not “reasonably likely to deter employees” from running for office against an incumbent Sheriff. See Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 970 (9th Cir.2003). As the district court noted, the announcement was at most “a dirty campaign trick.” Neither act rises to the level of a constitutional violation.

2. Transfer

Because there is no evidence contradicting the district court’s summary judgment finding for Kenny and Edwards with respect to Quantz’s transfer, on the basis that he failed to show that they were involved in the transfer decision, and there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983, we affirm the grant of summary judgment. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177…