N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KAY ANNE RILEY, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C ITY OF PRESC OTT, Ariz o na , a politic a l subdivision; e

t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 14-15395

D.C . No. 3:11-c v-08123-JAT M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

14, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd KOR M AN, ** Se nior Distric t Judge . Form e r Pre sc ott, Ariz ona M a y or, M arlin Kuy

ke nda l l, file d

this interloc utory a ppe a l se e king re v e rsa l of the distric t c ourt’ s orde r, whic h de nie d Kuy k e n da ll’ s 

# FIL ED APR 05 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Se n i or Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Ne wYork, sitting by de signa tion.m otion for sum m a ry judgm e nt a

nd de nie d him

qua lifie d im

m unity . W e re vie w de novo, C u nningham v
. C

ity of W e natc he e , 345 F.3d 802, 810 (9th C ir. 2003), a nd a ffirm . I As a thre shold issue , to the e xte nt Kuy ke nda ll a rgue s tha t R ile y ’ s e vide nc e is insuffic ie nt to c re ate m at e ria l issue s of fa c t a s to Kuy ke nda ll’ s involve m e nt in R ile y ’ s te rm ination, we la c k jurisdic tion. “ [A] n a ppe lla t e c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion ove r an inte rloc utory

a ppe a l c ha lle n ging thesuffic i e nc y of the e vide n c e supporting the t ria l c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t a n issue of fa c t e xists.” J

e ffe rs v . Gome

z , 267 F.3d 895, 903 (9th C ir. 2001); s e e also Be hre n s v . Pe lle t ie r , 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996). Whe re the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of sum m ary judgm e nt is ba s e d both on the e xiste nc e of tria

ble issue s of fa c t a

n d the la c k

of qua lifie d im

m unity , we have jurisdic tion only

to “ re solve a ll fa c tua l dispute s in fa vor of the pla intiff a

nd look a t the p ure ly le g a l que stion of whe the r the de fe nda nt's a lle ge d

c onduc t viola

t e d the pla i ntiff's c le arly

e sta blishe d c onstitutiona

l rights.” C

unningham , 345 F.3d a

t 807 (e m pha sis a dde d ). That is wha t we m ust do he re . II Kuyke n da ll is not entitle d to qua lifie d im m unity . Qua lifie d im

m unity is a sse sse d in two ste

ps. First wea sk whe the r the fa c ts (a ssum e d in the pla i ntiff’ s

2favor) de m onstra te a c onstitutiona

l viola tion; a n d se c ond, if so, whe the r it wa s

“ c l e arly e sta b lishe d” at the tim e tha

t suc h c onduc t wa s unc onstitutiona l. C unningham , 345 F.3d a

t 810 (c iting Sauc ie r v . K

a tz , 533 U.S. 194 (2001)). R e solving all fa c tua l dispute s in Rile y ’ s favor, R ile y ha s shown a c onstitutiona

l viola t ion. Se e id. at 807. First, R i le y ’ s prote st wa s on a

m atte r of public c onc e rn. It wa s c lose ly c ove re d by

loc a l m e dia

and c e nte re d on c ity offic ia ls’ high-profile(an d a l le ge dly re t a lia t ory ) tre at m e nt, te rm ination, a

n d a rre st of a form e r c i ty

e m ploy e e . Se eC

lairmont v . Sound Me ntal He alth , 632 F.3d 1091, 1103–05 (9th C ir. 2011) (noting tha t spe e c h tha t “bring[s] to light pote

ntia l or a c tua l disc rim ination, c orruption, or other wrongful c onduc t by gove rnm e nt a ge nc ie s or offic ia ls” whe n give n to a broa d a udie nc e rathe r tha

n in priva te grie va nc e form will m ake the spe e c h “ a

m atte r of public c onc e rn” ). Se c o nd, Rile y wa s not spe aking a s a

pa rt of he r job, but ra

the r a s a priva t e c itiz e n . Se e id. at 1105–06 (governm e nt c ontra c tor’ s e m ploy e e te stify ing a s a

n e xpe rt wa s a c ting a s priva te c i tiz e n whe re it wa s not a pa rt of his offic ia l job dutie s to do so). And third, R ile y ’ s prote c te d spe e c h wa s a substa ntia l or m otiva

ting fa c tor in the a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion. Se e id. at 1106 (plai ntiff e sta b lishe d this fa c tor whe re

“ [s] e v e ra l e m a ils . . . viewe d in thelight most fa vora ble to [the pla i ntiff] , re a s ona bly c ould support a

finding tha

t [the pla intiff] wa s fire d be c a u s e of” the 3probat ion offic e ’ s c onc e rns ove r his te stim ony rathe r tha

n c om pla i nts a bout the pla i ntiff’ s job pe rform anc e ). R ile y ha s thus shifte d

the burde n to Kuy

ke nda ll to show tha

t the re wa s “ an a de quate justific ation for tre at i ng [R ile y ] diffe re ntly from othe r m e m

b e rs of the ge ne ra l public ” and whe the r the re would ha ve be e n “ a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion e ve n a b se nt the prote c te d spe e c h.” Id. at 1102–03. Ye t Kuy ke nda ll ha s fa ile d to do a nything m ore tha

n disputethe suffic ie n c y

of the e vide nc e to pe rm it a jury to rule in Rile y ’ s favor on the se e le m e nts— som e thing wedon’ t ha v e jurisdic tion to a ddre s s. Ac c ordingly , R ile y ha s de m onstra

te d a c o nstitutiona

l viola tion. R ile y ’ s c onstitutiona

l rights we re c le arly

e sta blishe d at the tim e of the viola tion. As Kuy

ke n da ll c onc e de s, we de nie d qua lifie d im m unity unde r sim ila

r c irc um s ta nc e s in C lairmont for e ve nts tha

t pre date d R ile y ’ s te rm ination by se ve ra l y e ars. Se e 632 F.3d a

t 1 1 01–02, 1109–10. It is a lso a give n tha t at the tim e of R ile y ’ s te rm ination, it wa s c le arly e sta blishe d tha

t Kuy k e nda l l c ould not ha

v e te rm inate d YHS’ s c ontra c t ba se d on YHS’s spe e c h. Se e Bd. of C ty . C omm’rs v
. Umbe hr , 518 U.S. 668, 684 (1996); Riv e ro v . C ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 316 F.3d 857, 864 (9th C ir. 2002); H y land v . W

o nde r , 117 F.3d 405 (1997) ( Hy l and II ); Hy land v . W

onde r , 972 F.2d 1129 (9th C ir. 1992) ( Hy land I ). Ye t Kuy

ke nda ll fa ils to offe r any

pe rsua sive re a son why

it would be

re a sona ble for him

to none the le ss 4be lie ve he c ould c a use YHS to fire R ile y ba se d on he r spe e c h. W e hold tha

t he r rights we re a lso c le a

rly e sta b lishe d at the tim e . Our de c ision in C

lairmont squa re ly c ontrols theoutc o m e he re . W e the re fore AFFIRMthe distric t

c ourt’ s de nia l of sum

m ary judgm e nt.

5