H onor abl e Y vett e K ane, C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe * M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 09- 2012

_____________ J ON ATH AN KN I GH T, A p p e llan t,

v. D A V I D D R Y E , I n H i s I ndi vi dual and H i s O ffi ci al C apac i tyA s C hal fontB or ough M anage r ; M A R I L Y N B E C K E R , I n H erI ndi vi dual and I n H erO ffi ci al C apac i tyas M ay or O f C hal fontB or ough; G A R Y L U C A S, I n H i s O ffi ci al C apac i tyA s Pr es i dentC hal font Bo r o u g h Co u n c i l ; CH AL F ONT BO RO UGH C OUNC I L , I n T h e i rOf f i c i a l Ca p a c i t i e s As M e mb e r s o f

Ch a l f o n tBo r o u g h Co u n c i l ; CHALF ONT BOROUGH ; CHI EF P OLI CE FR A N K C A M PB E L L , I n H i s O ffi ci al C apac i tyA s C hi ef O f C hal fontB or ough Pol i ce D epart m ent ; PO L I C E B E N E V O L E N T A SSO C I A T I O N , C hal fontB or ough L odge; CH AL F ONT BO RO UGH P OL I CE DE P AR T M E NT , Ch a l f o n tBo r o u g h ; F RA T E RN AL O R D E R O F PO L L O D G E #53

______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cv- 03097) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary26, 2010 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges ; a n d KA NE, C hi ef D is tr i ct Judge. *2 ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 14, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ K A N E , C hi ef

D is tr i ct Judge . Jo n atha n K n igh t app ea ls from an o rde r of the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t t o the A p p ell ee s. S ee K n igh t v. D ry e, N o . 0 7 -30 9 7 (E . D . P a. M ar. 13 , 2 0 0 9 ). K ni ght ’ s amended compl ai ntas s ert ed thi r t een c aus es of ac t i on bas ed on hi s t erm i nat i on fr om hi s pos i t i on as a pol i ce of fi cerbeca us e he a l l egedl ydi s cl os ed conf i dent i al i nform at i on conce rni ng an under covernar cot i cs i nves t i gat i on. O n appea l , K ni ght chall eng es onlythe d i sm i ssal of h i s cl ai m based o n 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 fo r Fi rs t Ame n d me n tr e t a l i a t i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. O n February12, 1999, K ni ghtbegan hi s empl oym entas a pol i ce of fi cerfor C h a lf o n t B o ro u g h . A f

ter jo in in g th e p o lice f

o rc e , K n ig h t d e v e lo p e d a c a su a l f rie n d sh ip w i th W hi tneyW at s on, I V , the managerof a l ocal carw as h. I n 2005, W at s on w as under i nves t i gat i on bythe B ens al em T ow ns hi p Pol i ce D epart m entforhi s part i ci pat i on i n drug deal i ng. I n J anuary2005, W at s on cont act ed K ni ght . K ni ghtal l eges thatW at s on3

“c o m p lai n ed ab o u t hara ssm en t byfe ll o w O ff icer C li ff o rd H o rn.” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 6.) K n ig h t m a in tain s th a t af ter b e in g c o n tac ted b yW a tso n , h e p ro m p tlyto o k th e c o m p lain t to O ffi cerR obertM i l l i gan and t o Pol i ce Chi ef Fr ank C ampbel l . ( I d. ) A tthatt i m e, M i l l i gan and C ampbel l i nform ed K ni ghtthatW at s on w as underi nves t i gat i on. O n Sept ember23, 2005, aft erbei ng t i pped byan under coveri nform antthatK ni ght h a d g iv e n in f

o rm a tio n a b o u t th e in v e stig a tio n to W a tso n , the C h a lf o n t B o ro u g h C o u n c il pl ace d K ni ghton a t empora rypai d l eave of abs ence . O n Sept ember27, 2005, K ni ghtw as arr es t ed and c har ged w i th obs truct i ng the admi ni s tr at i on of l aw orgovernm ent al funct i on and hi nder i ng pr os ecut i on. T hats ame day , he w as s us pended bythe C hal fontB or ough C ou ncil w i tho ut pay . O n O ct ob er 11, 20 05 , K nightw as t erm i nated from his po si t i on as a p o li ce o ff

icer. In Ju n e 2 0 0 5 , in th e p e rio d b e tw e e n K n ig h t’s c o n tac t w ith W a tso n a n d h is ter m in a tio n , K n ig h t w a s in v o lv e d a s a w itn e ss o f a n in c id e n t at a lo c a l p u b . A c c o rd in g to K n igh t, w h il e h e w as o ff d u ty , h e w itn esse d D av id D ry e, C h alfo n t B o rou g h m an ag er, st eal beer from beh i nd the b ar and d i stri bu t e i tt o o ther cust om ers . A n argum ent ar ose b e tw e e n D rye a n d th e p u b o w n e r. K n ig h t a tte m p te d to b re a k u p th e f ig h t th a t e n s u e d . H o w e v e r, h e w a s n o t in v o lv e d in th e la te r o f f ic ia l in v e s tig a tio n o f

th e a lte rc a tio n . II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att erpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1331. T h i s C o u r th a s j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v i e w a D i s tr i c tC o u r t 'sI n hi s appea l , K ni ghtal s o r ai s es a cl ai m thathe w as t erm i nat ed fort es t i fy i ng befor e a 1 g ra n d ju ry , w h ich w a s e m p a n e led to in v e stig a te h is o w n c rim in a l co n d u c t. T h is c laim w as notr ai s ed bef

or e the D i s tr i ctC our tand, as a r es ul t , i s w ai ved on appe al . See B agot v. A s hcr oft , 398 F. 3d 252, 256 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; B r ennerv. L ocal 514, U ni t ed B hd. of C arp en ters & Jo iners o f A m . , 9 2 7 F . 2 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 9 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 4 or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entde novo, appl y i ng the s ame st andar d as the D i s tr i ct C o u rt . A lcoa , Inc . v . U n it ed S tat es, 50 9 F . 3 d 1 7 3 , 1 7 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yw her e ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand the m ovi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . Sal dana v. K m artC orp. , 260 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). III . T he D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed s um m aryj udgm entforA ppel l ees . O n appea l , K ni ght cl ai m s thatther e w er e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tr egar di ng hi s Fi r s tA m endment r et al i at i on cl ai m thats houl d have pr ecl uded s um m aryj udgm ent . K ni ghtcont ends thathe w as fi r ed forengagi ng i n tw o s peci fi c i ns t ance s of pr ot ect ed conduc t . Fi r s t , K ni ghtci t es hi s r eportt o Pol i ce Chi ef Cam pbel l and O ffi cerM i l l i gan al l egi ng m i s conductbyO ffi cer H orn. Second, K ni ghtci t es the pot ent i al l ycr i m i nal conductbyD ry e thatK ni ght w i tn e s s e d w h e n h e w a s o f f - d u ty. 1 “T o st at e a F i rs tA m end m ent r et al i at i on cl ai m , a pu bli c em ploy ee plai nti ff m ust a lleg e th a t h is a c tiv ityis p ro tec ted b yth e F irst A m e n d m e n t, an d th a t th e p ro tec ted a c tiv ity w as a s ubs t ant i al fac t ori n the al l eged r et al i at oryact i on. ” G orum v. Ses s om s , 561 F. 3d 1 7 9 , 1 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (cit ing H il l v. B o rou g h o f K u tzt o w n , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 4 1 (3d C ir .5

2006) ) . “‘ T he fi r s tfac t ori s a ques t i on of l aw ; the s econd f act ori s a ques t i on of fa ct . ’ ” Id . (q u o tin g H ill, 4 5 5 F .3 d a t 2 4 1 ). A publ i c empl oy ee’ s s t at ementi s pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyw hen ( 1) i n m aki ng i t , the e m p lo y e e sp o k e a s a c iti z e n , (2 ) th e sta tem e n t in v o lv e d a m a tter o f p u b lic c o n c e rn , an d (3 ) th e g o v e r n m e n t em p lo y e r d id n o t h a v e ‘a n a d e q u a te j us t i fi cat i on fortr eat i ng th e em pl oy ee di ffe r ent l yfr om anyotherm emberof the gene r al publ i c’ as a r es ul tof the s t at ementhe made. H il l, 4 5 5 F . 3 d at 24 1 -42 (qu o ti n g G arc ett i v. C eb all o s, 5 4 7 U . S . 4 1 0 , 4 1 8 (20 0 6 )). W e fi nd that the D i stri ctC ou rtw as corr ecti n d i sm i ssi ng bo th o f K night ’s F i rs t A m en d m en t cl aim s as in su ff ici en t t o w ith stan d su m m aryjud g m en t. F ir st, K n igh t’ s compl ai ntup the cha i n of comm and t o O ffi cerM i l l i gan and Pol i ce Chi ef Cam pbel l i s not sp e e c h p ro tec ted b yth e F irst A m e n d m e n t. “[ W ]h e n p u b lic e m p lo y e e s m a k e sta tem e n ts pu rs uan tt o thei r offi ci al du t i es, the em ploy ees ar e no tspeaking as ci t i zens fo r Fi rs t A m endmentpurpos es , and the C ons t i tut i on does noti ns ul at e thei rcomm uni cat i ons fr om em p loy er d isci p li n e.” G arc ett i, 5 4 7 U . S . at 42 1 . A lth o u g h K n igh t argu es th at his rep o rt s houl d be pr ot ect ed bythe Thi r d C i r cui t ’ s r ece ntpr onouncementi n R ei l l yv. C i tyof A tl an ti c C ity , 5 3 2 F . 3 d 2 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), h is r eli an ce o n that ca se is m isplace d . In R ei l l y , w e found thatthe truthful t es t i m onybya pol i ce of fi ceri n courtcons t i tut ed

“ c iti z e n sp e e c h ” a n d w a s th e re f o re p re c lu d e d f

ro m th e “ o f

f icia l d u ties ” d o c trin e se t f o rth in G a rc e tti . R e ill y , 5 3 2 F .3 d a t 2 3 1 . H o w e v e r, K n ig h t’s o u t-o f -c o u rt sta tem e n ts to h is su p e rio rs d o n o t f

a ll i n to th is c a teg o ry . T h e re f o re , the D istric t C o u rt w a s c o rre c t in6

fi ndi ng thatK ni ghtfai l ed t o es t abl i s h a Fi r s tA m endmentvi ol at i on bas ed on hi s r epor t i ng o f a n ym is c o n d u c t b yO f

f ic e r H o rn . S e c o n d , K n i g h ta r g u e s th a th i s o b s e r v a t i o n o f th e c o n d u c to f

M a n a g e rD a v i d D r ye w as a mot i vat i on forhi s fi r i ng, and thathi s r et al i at i on cl ai m s houl d ther efor e have been al l ow ed t o pr ocee d. A gai n, the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yfound thatK ni ghtfai l ed t o poi nt t o r ecor d evi dence thathe eve rr eport ed D ry e’ s conduct . A bs ents uch a r eport , the D i s tr i ctC our tw as corr ecti n fi ndi ng thatK ni ghtcoul d nots uppor ta Fi r s tA m endment r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatno genui ne i s s ue of f act rem ai ned . A pp el l ees w ere therefore enti t l ed to sum m aryj ud gm ent on t he F i rs t Ame n d me n tr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. A d d iti o n a lly , K n ig h t ar g u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yc iti n g g ro u n d s f o r h is f irin g th a t w e re n o t re lied u p o n b yA p p e llee s a n d b yf a ili n g to d ra w f

a c tu a l in f

e re n c e s in hi s favor . E s s ent i al l y , K ni ghtar gues that“a j uryw oul d be l eftw i th ques t i ons aboutt he r eal r eas ons A ppel l ee of fer ed forfi r i ng” hi m . ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at28. ) H ow ever , K ni ght m i sses the p oint . W hatever the m oti vati on s w ere for hi s fi ri ng , he h as fai l ed to est abli sh th a t th e yw e re th e re su lt o f th e e x e rc ise o f

h is F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. T h e re f o re , h is Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s 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 o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.