2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-1-2006 

# H all v . S EP T A P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1364

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H all v . S EP T A" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1650. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1650T he H onor abl e D i cki ns on R . D ebevoi s e, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct * C o u rt f o r t h e D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 1364 EDW AR D H ALL, A ppel l ant

v. S E P T A; RI CH AR D E VANS APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

D . C . C i vi l 04- cv- 00892 D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary10, 2006 B efor e: B A R R Y and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and D E B E V O I SE , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February1, 2006)

OP I NI ONA ppel l anthas been e m pl oy ed bythe SE PT A T r ans i tPol i ce D epart m ents i nce 1983 1 a n d h a s b e e n a s e rg e a n t s in c e 1 9 9 1 . 2 B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A p p e llan t E d w a rd H a ll b ro u g h t su it ag a in st a p p e llee s S o u th e a ste rn P e n n sy lv a n ia Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Auth o r i ty( “ SEP TA”) a n d Ri c h a r d J . Ev a n s , th e Chi e f o f th e SEP TA T r ans i tPol i ce D epart m ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o appel l ees on o n e c o u n t o f

a th re e c o u n t c o m p la in t, a n d a p p e lla n t a p p e a ls . W e w ill a f f ir m . I. A t a p p ro x im a te ly 1 0 :3 0 P .M . o n th e e v e n in g o f O c to b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , a p p e lla n t, a s er geanti n t he SE PT A T r ans i tPol i ce D epart m ent , parked hi s per s onal vehi cl e out s i de 1 his res i den ce i n P hil adelphi a, P enn sy l van i a. O n the fl oo r behi nd the d ri ver’ s seatw as a knaps ack c ont ai ni ng, among ot herper s onal i t ems, the fol l ow i ng SE PT A Pol i ce e q u ip m e n t: (1 ) ra d io w ith m icr o p h o n e ; (2 ) w in ter h a t w ith f ro n tice p iec e ; (3 ) g a rriso n b e lt w i th gun hol s t er ; ( 4) handcuf f ca s e w i th cuff

s ; ( 5) tw o w i nt ers hi r t s w i th SE PT A pat ch; ( 6) tw o w i nt erpant s ; and ( 7) a bl ack ne ck t i e. T he nextm orni ng, appel l antdi s cover ed thathi s carhad bee n br oken i nt o and the knaps ack a nd i t s cont ent s s t ol en. T he i t em of part i cul arconce r n i n t hi s cas e i s the SE PT A r adi o, w hi ch w as i s s ued t o appel l anton J une 12, 2000. U pon i s s uance , appel l ants i gned a r ece i ptthati ndi cat ed hi s under s t andi ng t hat he i s “fi nanci al l yr es pons i bl e forthe [r adi o] i n the eve nti ti s l os t , s t ol en ordamaged due to m yn eg li g en ce . . . . ” (A 2 3 9 . )I n r es pons e t o t he O ct ober28 m emora ndum , C hi ef Evans r epl i ed bym emora ndum 2 dat ed N ovember1, 2002, w hi ch i n ful l s t at ed: I ha v e re ce ived y o u r m em o ran d u m d ated O ctob er 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 . T h e p re-d isci p li n ary i nves t i gat i on i s conduct ed t o es t abl i s h fac t s , w hi ch s uppor torr ej ectdi s ci pl i ne. T he poi nt s y ou m ake i n y ourm emora ndum m aybe us ed byy ou t o convi nce the i nves t i gat orei therthatdi s ci pl i ne i s notw arr ant ed orthati ts houl d be mi t i gat ed. I am di s turbed byy ourfi nal par agr aph cont ai ned i n the mem or andum. I f y ou have evi dence of corrupt i on and/ orabus e of of fi ce bym ember s of thi s D epart m ent , y ou as l aw enfo rcem ent offi ci al [si c] ar e ob l i ged t o p res ent tho se fact s. Pl eas e s ubm i ta mem or andum t o thi s offi ce out l i ni ng thos e fa ct s byN ovember12, 2002 s o t hatan i nves t i gat i on m aybe conduc t ed. T he mem or andum m aybe s ubm i t t ed di r ect l y , out s i de of the cha i n of comm and. (A 2 2 2 .) A p p e llan t su b m itt e d a m e m o ra n d u m d a ted N o v e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 2 w h ich re sta ted h is s us pi ci ons butoffe r ed no fa ctual bas i s forhi s cl ai m s of abus e of of fi ce a nd corrupt i on. 3 On Oct o b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , a p p e l l a n ts u b mi t t e d a me mor a n d u m t o Chi e f o f SEP TA Pol i ce Ri char d E vans not i fy i ng hi m of w hathad occ urr ed. A ppel l antw as advi s ed the sa m e d a yth a t h e w o u ld b e re q u ire d to tak e p a rt in a p re -d isc ip lin a ryin ter v iew w ith L t. C oat es on O ct ober31, 2002 “i n r efe r ence t o [hi s ] fai l ur e t o s afe guar d [hi s ] pol i ce e q u ip m e n t.” (A 2 1 8 .) A p p e llan t th e n su b m itt e d a m e m o ra n d u m in w h ich h e sta ted h is pos i t i on r egar di ng anypot ent i al r es pons i bi l i tyforthe s t ol en equi pm enti n hopes thatt he di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs w oul d be t erm i nat ed. H e conc l uded the mem or andum bynot i ng hi s expec t at i on thatthe i nt ervi ew w oul d “exone r at e [hi m ] of anyvi ol at i on of pol i ce pol i ci es ” and hi s s us pi ci on, i n t he eve nthe w as notexoner at ed, that“ther e’ s under l y i ng m o tiv e s o f

c o rr u p tio n a n d a b u s e o f o f f ic e .” (A 2 2 0 .) 24

A tthe hea r i ng, appel l anti nform ed Lt . C oat es of the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng t he theft , and w as or der ed t o r epaySE PT A the val ue of the r adi o. A ppel l antcont ended, i n a m emora ndum t o t he SE PT A pol i ce l aborl i ai s on, thatthe or derw as i nappr opr i at e i n l i ght o f h is no t hav ing “b ee n fo u n d g u il tyo f a n yw ron g d o ing . ” (A 2 2 3 . ) L t. C o ates, ho w ev er, re p o rte d in a m e m o ra n d u m to C h ief E v a n s d a ted N o v e m b e r 6 , 2 0 0 2 “ th a t alth o u g h S g t. H al l w as a vi ct i m of a c r i m e, [] he w as negl i gentbyl eavi ng hi s Sept a pol i ce r adi o i ns i de a knaps ack i n t he r earof hi s vehi cl e. ” ( A 227. ) H e bel i eved thatappel l anthad vi ol at ed A rticle II o f

th e p ro g re ss iv e d isc ip lin a ryc o d e , w h ich p ro v id e s th a t “[ f ]a ilu re to p ro p e rly c a r e f o ra n d ma i n t a i n S e p t a e q u i p me n t ” c o n s t i tu t e d Ne g l e c to f Du ty . ( A2 2 8 . ) He n e v e rth e les s re c o m m e n d e d o n lyc o u n se lin g a n d re in stru c tio n in a d d iti o n to r ei m bur s ementgi ven thatappel l antl acke d anypr i ordi s ci pl i naryr ecor d. O n N ovember6, a p p e llan t re c e iv e d a m e m o ra n d u m in f o rm in g h im th a t h is “ a c tio n s in d ica te n e g lig e n c e in a d e q u a te ly sa f

e g u a rd in g S e p ta e q u ip m e n t.” (A 2 2 9 .) P u rs u a n t to S E P T A d is c ip lin a ry p ro c e d u re s , a p p e lla n t a p p e a le d th a t f in d in g . A h e a rin g w a s h e ld b yC a p tain S tev e n H a ro ld in h is o f f ice o n N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 2 . C a p tain H ar ol d “conc ur [r ed] w i th t he Li eut enant ’ s deci s i on. ” ( A 238) ( “Y ou fai l ed t o t ake appr opr i at e s afe guar d m eas ur es and us ed poorj udgementbys t or i ng the r adi o i n y our vehi cl e. ”) A ppel l antappea l ed thatdeci s i on and a he ar i ng w as hel d on D ece m ber12, 2002 i n the off

i ce of D eputyC hi ef D avi d Scot t . I n advanc e of thathear i ng, appel l ant s u b m itte d a m e m o ra n d u m w h e re in , in tera lia , he r eques t ed thathe be e xoner at ed “ofR ei m bur s ementw as or der ed bec aus e of: ( 1) appel l ant ’ s agr eementupon r ece i ptof 3 the r adi o; ( 2) an empl oy ee r es pons i bi l i typol i cys t at i ng that“[w ] hen i ti s det erm i ned that negl i gence w as i nvol ved i n t he l os s , theft , ordamage of SE PT A pr operty , the empl oy ee w i l l be s ubj ectt o di s ci pl i naryact i on . . . and/ orbe r equi r ed t o payforthe l os t , s t ol en or d a m a g e d p ro p e rty ,” (A 2 6 3 ); a n d (3 ) a d isc ip lin a ryc o d e p ro v isio n p ro v id in g th a t itis n e g l e c to f

d u tyf o ra n o f f i c e rt o f a i l t o “ p r o p e r l yc a r e f

o ra n d ma i n t a i n SEP TA eq u ipm en t. ” (A 2 8 1 ). 5 negl i gence . ” ( A 242) ( “The opt i on of w her e I chos e t o s t or e myr adi o thatni ghtm aybe cons i der ed ‘ poorj udgm ent ’ t o s om e. H ow ever , I di dn’ tnegl ectt o l ock al l door s and c lo s e a ll w in d o w s .” ) D e p u ty C h ie f S c o tt u p h e ld th e p ri o r d e c is io n s . A ppel l antfi l ed a f

i nal appea l w hi ch w as hear d byC hi ef Evans . C hi ef Evans found th a t [n] ei therL i eut enantC oat es norappea l hear i ng offi cer s , C apt ai n St even H ar ol d norD eputyC hi ef D avi d Scot ts ubs t i tut ed thei row n opi ni ons for p o l i c y . Po l i c ys t a t e s th a ty o u a r e t o p r o p e r l yc a r e f o ra n d ma i n t a i n SEP TA equi pm ent . I tw as thei rr evi ew of the ci r cumst ance s and exe r ci s e of good m anage m entj udgement , w hi ch conc l uded thaty ourvehi cl e i s not su f f icie n tlyse c u re to p ro p e rlysa f e g u a rd a n e x p e n siv e p iec e o f e q u ip m e n t, and thaty ou have a r es pons i bi l i tyt o r ei m bur s e the A uthor i tyforthe s t ol en ra d io b e c a u se y o u f

a iled to a d e q u a telyse c u re it. ( A 252. ) A ppel l antw as ther eaf t err equi r ed t o r ei m bur s e SE PT A $50 perw eek unt i l t he 3 $2, 800 bal ance w as pai d. H avi ng exhaus t ed hi s i nt ernal r emedi es , appel l antbegan maki ng paym ent s and, on M arc h 1 , 2 0 0 4 , fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia a g a in st S E P T A a n d C h ief E v a n s. H e p re ss e d th re e c o u n ts in h is c o m p lain t: (1 ) ra c e d isc rim in a tio n in v io latio n o f 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 ; (2 ) re talia tio n in6

v io la tio n o f

4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 ; a n d (3 ) a d u e p ro c e s s c la im a ri s in g u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1983. H i s r ace di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai m s s ur vi ved appe l l ees ’ m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm entand w er e tr i ed t o a j ury , w hi ch found a gai ns thi m . I ti s onl ythe fi nal c laim , tha t ar isin g u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 , tha t is b e f o re u s o n a p p e a l. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the gr antof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. S e e Ko p e c v . T a te , 3 6 1 F . 3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); Knei pp v. Tedder , 9 5 F .3 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te “i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogether w i th the af

fi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand th a t th e m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). W e “view the inferences t o b e draw n from the u nd erl y i ng fact s i n the l i gh tm ost f a v o ra b le ” to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y , h e re , a p p e lla n t. Kopec , 3 6 1 F .3 d a t 7 7 5 . III . S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 p ro v id e s: E veryper s on w ho, undercol orof anys t atut e, or di nance , r egul at i on, cus t om , orus age, of anySt at e orT err i t oryorthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a, s ubj ect s , orcaus es t o be s ubj ect ed, anyci t i zen of the U ni t ed St at es orother person w i thin the jur i sdi ct i on thereof to the d epri vati on of an yri gh t s, pr i vi l eges , ori m m uni t i es s ecur ed bythe C ons t i tut i on and l aw s , s hal l be l i abl e t o t he partyi nj ur ed i n an ac t i on atl aw , s ui ti n equi ty , orotherpr oper p ro c e e d in g f

o r r e d re s s . . . .A ppel l antal s o as s ert s a vi ol at i on of the Four th A m endmenti n pr es s i ng hi s due 4 p ro c e ss c laim . H e h a s n o t su g g e ste d , n o r d o w e se e , h o w th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t is i m pl i cat ed. 7 A lth o u g h its la n g u a g e is b ro a d , “ S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 ‘i s n o t its e lf a s o u rc e o f

s u b s ta n tiv e ri g h ts ,’ butm er el ypr ovi des ‘ a met hod forvi ndi cat i ng fede r al r i ght s el s ew her e conf err ed. ’ ” A l br ightv. O l i ver , 51 0 U . S . 26 6, 27 1 (199 4) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed). T herefore, w e m ustfi rs t “det erm i ne w hether[appe l l ant ] has al l eged the depr i vat i on of an a ctual cons t i tut i onal r i ghtatal l . ” C on necti cut v. G ab bert , 5 2 6 U . S . 2 8 6 , 2 9 0 (19 9 9 ). A p p e llan t alle g e d , in s u p p o rt o f h is § 1 9 8 3 c laim , tha t S E P T A f a iled “ to p ro p e rly trai n, supervi se, and con trol i t s offici al s and C hief of P oli ce regardi ng the d ue p rocess r i ght s of [a ppel l ant ] and t o be fr ee f r om r et al i at oryact i ons [s i c] , ” and thatappel l ees v io late d h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t b yu n law f u llytak in g h is pr operty and “s ubj ect i ng hi m t o unl aw ful r et al i at oryact i ons . ” ( A 28. ) T he D i s tr i ct

4 C our t , i n i t s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent , obs erved thatthe compl ai nt“i s no par adi gm of cl ar i ty , and w e ar e unabl e t o di vi ne fr om i tthe cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on he a lle g e s .” (A 1 1 .) H i s r es pons e t o [appe l l ees ’ ] s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on as t o countthr ee [the § 1983 cl ai m ] i s even mur ki erand s et s for th l i t t l e more than c o n c lu s io n s u n s u p p o rt e d b yre c o rd e v id e n c e [ .] [A ppel l ant ] never( 1) s epar at el yi dent i fi es eac h cons t i tut i onal r i ght [appe l l ees ] vi ol at ed orent i t l ementtheydepr i ved hi m of; ( 2) ci t es l egal author i tyhol di ng thats uch a r i ghtorent i t l ementexi s t s , or , i f ther e i s no s uch author i ty , acknow l edges the l ack ther eof a nd ci t es anal ogous cas es s ugges t i ng thats uch a r i ghtorent i t l ements houl d exi s t ; ( 3) s uppor t s eac h8

fac tual as s ert i on w i th ci t at i ons t o the r ecor d; and ( 4) r es ponds t o the a rg u m e n ts d e f

e n d a n ts ra is e d in th e irb ri e f[ .] A t th is la te d a te, [ a p p e llan t] m u st o f f e r m o re th a n sp e c u latio n a b o u t w h a t, p re c ise ly , [h e ] is e v e n c laim in g in th is c o u n t th a t is n o t cla im e d in c o u n ts o n e a n d tw o , a n d th u s w e s h a ll g ra n t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to c o u n t th re e [ .] (A 1 1 -12 ) (em p h asis in o ri g inal an d fo o tno te om itted). A l tho ug h the l ack o f cl ari typersi st s on ap peal, tw o p ri m arybases for app el l ant’ s § 1 9 8 3 c laim c a n b e g lea n e d . F irst, ap p e llan t co n ten d s th a t ap p e llee s v io late d h is rig h ts u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t w h e n th e yto o k h is p ro p e rtyw ith o u t ad e q u a tely fol l ow i ng thei row n pr ocedur es . Second, he cont ends thathe w as r et al i at ed aga i ns tfor exer ci s i ng hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o voi ce hi s s us pi ci ons thatabus e of of fi ce a nd c o rr u p tio n m o tiv a te d th e re im b u rs e m e n t o rd e r. T he C ons t i tut i on pr ot ect s agai ns tdepr i vat i ons “of l i fe, l i berty , orpr operty , w i t hout d u e p ro c e ss o f

law .” U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . X IV , § 1 . T h e re is n o se rio u s d isp u te in th is c a s e th a t th e re im b u rs e m e n t o rd e r r e p re s e n te d a d e p ri v a tio n o f a p p e lla n t’ s p ro p e rt y . A ppel l ant , how ever , chal l enges the pr ocedur al s uffi ci encyof SE PT A ’ s i nves t i gat oryand a p p e a ls p ro c e ss lea d in g to th e o rd e r o f re im b u rse m e n t. “D u e p ro c e ss re q u ire s th a t a depr i vat i on of a pr opertyi nt er es t‘ be pr ece ded bynot i ce a nd oppor tuni tyforhear i ng appr opr i at e t o t he natur e of the ca s e. ’ ” G ika s v . W a sh . Sc h . D ist. , 328 F. 3d 731, 738 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A ppel l antw as pr ovi ded w i th not i ce of the i ns t i tut i on of an i nves t i gat i on and w as offe r ed numer ous oppor tuni t i es t o m ake hi s cas e. H e does not d isa g re e , arg u in g in ste a d th a t all o f th a t w a s “ sta g e d ” a n d th a t th e re w a s a f a ilu re to9

a d e q u a telyin v e stig a te w h e th e r h e w a s in d e e d n e g lig e n t. T h e re is u tterlyn o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd to s u p p o rt e ith e r a rg u m e n t, a n d h is m e re s a y -s o d o e s n o t m a k e it s o . A ppel l antal s o appea r s t o ar gue thathe w as notpr ovi ded s uffi ci entnot i ce that l eavi ng the r adi o i n hi s carcoul d cons t i tut e negl i gence . A gai n, w e di s agr ee. I tw as nei therunfor es eeabl e norunfai rthatSE PT A w oul d deem i tnegl i gentforone t o l eave a ra d io in h is p ri v a te v e h ic le a n d n e g le c t o f d u ty f o r o n e to f

a il to “ p ro p e rl yc a re f

o r . . . SE PT A equi pm ent . ” S e e g e n e ra lly San F i l i ppo v. B ongi ovanni , 9 6 1 F . 2 d 1 1 2 5 (3d C ir . 1992) . A ppel l antw as on fai rnot i ce thathi s conductcoul d, ata mi ni m um , “puthi m at ri s k ” o f a re im b u rs e m e n t o rd e r. I d. at1137. M or eover , appel l antcannots ucce ed bycl ai m i ng thatthe r ei m bur s ementor der c o n s t i tu t e d a v i o l a t i o n o f s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s . Be i n g r e q u i r e d t o r e i mbu r s e SEP TA the cos tof the r adi o underthe ci r cumst ance s her e i s cl ear l ynot“conduc t‘ thats hocks t he co n scien ce ’ an d v iolates th e ‘d ec en cies o f c ivil ized co n d u ct. ’” C ount y of Sacr am ento v. L e w is , 523 U . S. 833, 846 ( 1998) ( quot i ng R o c h in v . C a lif o rn ia , 342 U . S. 165, 172- 73 ( 1952) ( fi ndi ng a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i on w her e a s us pect ’ s s t om ach w as fo rciblyp u m p ed )). T urni ng t o hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m , w e fi nd thatappel l ant ’ s cont ent i on thatthe rei m bu rs em ent or der w as i n ret al i at i on for exerci si ng w hat he con t end s w as hi s Fir st A m e n d m e n t rig h t to v o ice h is s u sp icio n s re g a rd in g a b u se o f o f f ice a n d c o rru p tio n is w ith o u t m e ri t. W e a p p ly a t h re e -s te p te s t in a s s e s s in g th is c la im . See Hi l lv. C i t y of10

Scr ant on , 411 F. 3d 118, 125 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A ppel l antm us tdemonstr at e “thatthe a c tiv ityis in f

a c t p ro tec ted ,” a n d “ th a t th e p ro tec ted a c tiv ity‘w a s a su b sta n tial f a c to r in the al l eged r et al i at oryact i on. ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I f appe l l anti s abl e t o m ake s uch a s h o wi n g , a p p e l l e e s c o u l d “ d e f e a t[ a p p e l l a n t ’ s ] c l a i m b yd e mo n s tr a t i n g th a tth e s a me adver s e ac t i on w oul d have t aken pl ace i n the abs ence of the pr ot ect ed conduc t . ” I d. A p p e llan t’s c laim f

a ils a t th e f

irst ste p . “In o rd e r to f

in d w h e th e r a p u b lic empl oy ee e ngaged i n pr ot ect ed fr ee s peec h act i vi ty , the courtm us tfi r s tdet erm i ne w h e th e r th e sp e e c h c a n b e f a irlyc h a ra c ter ize d a s c o n stitu tin g sp e e c h o n a m a tter o f p u b lic conce rn. ” Ho ld e rv . Ci t y o f Al l e n t o wn , 9 8 7 F . 2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). A p p ell an t’ s cont ent i on thatoffi ci al s atSE PT A cons pi r ed i n thei reff or t s t o unfai r l yr equi r e hi m t o pay f o r th e sto len ra d io c a n n o t b e “ f a irlyc o n sid e re d a s re latin g to a n ym a tter o f p o lit ica l, s oci al , orot herconce r n t o t he comm uni ty . ” W h e th e r th e sp e e c h c a n b e f a irlyc h a ra c ter ize d a s re latin g to a n yp o lit ica l, so c ial o r o th e r c o n c e rn o f th e c o m m u n ityis d e ter m in e d b yits “ c o n ten t, form , and cont ext . ” The cont entof the s peec h m ayhel p t o char act er i ze i tas r el at i ng t o a mat t erof s oci al orpol i t i cal conce rn of the comm uni tyi f, for exampl e, the s peake rs eeks t o “br i ng t o l i ghtactual orpot ent i al w r ongdoi ng orbr eac h of publ i c trus t ” on the partof governm entoffi ci al s . T he form and cont extof the s peec h m ayhel p t o char act er i ze i tas r el at i ng t o a mat t erof s oci al orpol i t i cal conce r n t o the comm uni tyi f, forexampl e, the forum w h e re th e sp e e c h a c tiv itytak e s p lac e is n o t co n f in e d m e re lyto th e p u b lic offi ce w her e the s peake ri s empl oy ed. I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A ppel l antneverpur s ued hi s s us pi ci ons , neverm ade them publ i c, an d ca st th e issu e in term s o f h is i n d ividu al si tuation u n ti l th e ins tant ap p ea l. M o reo v er,11

al though appel l antcorr ect l ynot es thathe nee d notpr ove thatther e w as corrupt i on, the m ere al l egati on that i texis t s does no tcl othe hi m w i th the prot ect i on of the F i rs t A m endment . A ppel l ant ’ s corrupt i on ar gum ent , l i ke hi s due pr oces s ar gum ent , di s t i l l s t o a con t enti on that anyneg at i ve d eci si on byapp el l ees m usth a v e b e e n ta in te d b yim p ro p ri e ty. C on nick v. M

yers , 461 U . S. 138, 146 ( 1983) . Sum m aryj udgm entw as pr oper l ygr ant ed. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.