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- 2226

_____________ CH RI STOPHER D . AU BRECH T, A ppel l ant

v. P E NNS YL VANI A S T AT E P OL I CE , J E F F E RY B. M I L L E R, J OHN R . BR OWN, RA LPH M . PERI AN DI , RO DN EY PA TTERSON , J AM ES J . GA RO FOLO , J AM ES M CF ADDE N, M AR CE NI A R OB I NS ON, S T AC Y S CH M I T T , BR YAN L . KE Y, AN THO NY DELU CA , M I CH ELLE F REE, AN D TH E PENNSY LVA NI A STA TE T RO OP E RS AS S OC I AT I ON

_____________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 01053) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d St ew artC er cone

_____________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

J ul y15, 2010 B efore: F U E N T E S , V A N A S K IE, and W E IS, C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t5, 2010) OPINI ON O F THE COURTW e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s e n tryo f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. 1 S u tt o n v . R ash ee d , 3 2 3 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A ub rechtdefa ult ed in the D i stri ctC ou rtbyfai l i ng t o respon d to the D efen dan t s’ 2 C o n cise S tat em en ts of

M aterial F ac ts or p rov ide h is ow n . T h u s, p u rsua n t t o the W estern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a’ s L ocalC i vi l R ul e 56. 1( C ) and ( E ) , the fa ct s s etforth i n the s t at ement s of the C om m onw eal th D efe ndant s and the A s s oci at i on ar e undi s put ed for p u rp o s e s o f

th is ap p e a l. -2- FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: C h ri stop h er D . A u b rec h t app ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er g ran ti n g su m m ary ju d g m e n t to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S tate P o lice (“ P S P ” ), a n u m b e r o f n a m e d o f

f ice rs in th e ir in d iv idu a l an d o f

f icia l ca p a c iti e s (to g e th e r w ith th e P S P , the “ C o m m o n w e a lth D e f e n d a n t s ” ) , a n d th e P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e T r o o p e r s A s s o c i a t i o n ( th e “ A s s o c i a t i o n ” ) . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d wi l l a f f i rm. 1 I. B ecaus e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e di s cus s the fa ct s onl yt o the ext ent nece s s aryforr es ol ut i on of the i s s ue on appe al . Penns y l vani a St at e Troope rC hr i s t opher 2 D . A ubr echtcont ends thathi s compl ai nt s conce rni ng an al l eged t i cket i ng quot a s y s t em r es ul t ed i n adver s e tr eatm entatthe hands of hi s s uper i or s . A ubr echthas been e m pl oy ed bythe PSP si nce 1994. H e s erves i n T r oop T atthe N ew St ant on St at i on, a tr oop assig n ed the task o f p atroll ing the P en n sy lvan ia T u rnp ike s y stem . A s a tu rnp ike troo p er, A u b re c h t’ s p ri m a ry re s p o n s ib ility is tr a f f ic e n f o rc e m e n t.-3-

I n an ef fortt o eval uat e the r el at i ve per form ance of off i cer s on turnpi ke patr ol , one fac t orthe PSP consi der s i s the i ndi vi dual offi cer s ’ r at es of tr aff i c ci t at i ons , w r i tt en w arni ng s, and assi st s t o m otor i st s com pared t o the m on thlyst at i on averages i n those c a te g o ri e s . A s a ru le , o f f ic e rs a re n o t in s tru c te d to is s u e a n ys e t n u m b e r o f c ita tio n s . W hen off

i cer s cons i s t ent l yfal l bel ow the ave r age, how ever , s upervi s or s w i l l as s i gn a s eni oroffi cert o acc om panythe j uni oroffi cer( know n as “r i de- a- l ongs ”) t o ens ur e thatthe o f f i c e ri s u s i n g h i s o rh e ru n o b l i g a t e d t i m e w i s e l y. Form anyy ear s , A ubr echthad w r i tt en fa rfew erci t at i ons than the s t at i on aver age, resu lt ing in f

ri cti o n w ith h is sup erv isors. In Ju n e 2 0 0 4 , S erg ea n t K ey , cit ing p ressu re fr om s uper i or s , al l egedl yi ns truct ed A ubr echtt o w r i t e a mi ni m um of tw entyci t at i ons per m onth. O n A ugus t15, 2004, A ubr echts enta mem o t o K eyexpr es s i ng hi s conce rns about th e le g a lity o f

th e re q u ir e dn u m b e r o f c ita tio n s ; A u b re c h t in v o k e d 7 1 P .S . § 2 0 0 1 , a P e n n s y lv a n ia la w th a t p ro s c ri b e s th e u s e o f q u o ta s in th e e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

tr a f f ic la w s . K e yre sp o n d e d o n A u g u st 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , cla im in g th a t A u b re c h t h a dm isu n d e rsto o d th e ir c o n v e rs a tio n a n d th a t h e d id n o t m e a n to o rd e r h im to w ri te tw e n ty ci ta tio n s p e r m o n th . A u b re c h t cla im s th a t as a re su lt o f h is re f u sa l to p a rticip a te in th e ill e g a l q u o ta s y s t em, he w as s ubj ect ed t o adver s e empl oym entcondi t i ons , w hi ch onl yi ncr eas ed af t er the June 2004 conve r s at i on w i th K ey . T he adve r s e empl oym entact i ons of w hi ch he c o mp l a i n s i n c l u d e : r i d e - a - l o n g s , d e n i a l o f tr a n s f e rr e q u e s t s , d e n i a l o f

o v e rt i me opportuni t i es , r emedi al tr ai ni ng, poorper form ance eval uat i ons , deni al of tr ai ni ng, and-4-

deni al of ce rt ai n s hi fts el ect i ons . B as ed on thes e per cei ved s l i ght s , A ubr echts oughtr el i ef in th e D istric t C o u rt u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 f o r v io latio n s o f

h is F irst a n d F o u rte e n th A m end m ent r i gh t s. T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ldth a t A u b re c h t f a iled to sh o w th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth D efe ndant s depr i ved hi m of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtorthatthe A s s oci at i on act ed under “col orof s t at e l aw . ” The C ourthel d thatw hi l e the C om m onw eal th D efe ndant s di d act u n d e r “ c o lo r o f

sta te la w ,” n o n e o f

th e a c tio n s a lleg e d b yA u b re c h t am o u n ted to cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons . T he C ourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o the def endant s and dis m i ssed the case. A ub rechtapp eal s. II. A. T he C om m on w eal th D efen dan t s ar gu e, and w e agree, that A ub recht ’s app eal m ust “be di s m i s s ed due t o appel l ant s m ani fes tfai l ur e t o compl yw i th [Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e] 28( a) ( 9) ( A ) . ” ( B r . at35. ) R ul e 28( a) ( 9) ( A ) , Fed. R . A pp. P. , and L ocalA ppel l at e R ul e 28. 3( c) both r equi r e thatappel l ant s ’ br i efs art i cul at e cont ent i ons s u p p o rt e d b yre a s o n in g g ro u n d e d in a u th o ri ty, as w e ll a s c ita tio n s to th e f a c tu a l r e c o rd . W e have hel d “thatcas ual m ent i on of an i s s ue i n a br i ef i s cur s orytr eatm enti ns uffi ci ent to p re s e rv e th e is s u e o n ap p e a l.” K o s t v . K o z a k ie w ic z , 1 F .3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). “[A ] n ar gum entcons i s t i ng of no m or e than a c oncl us oryas s ert i on . . . ( w i thouteven a ci t at i on t o the r ecor d) w i l l be dee m ed w ai ved. ” R eynol ds v. W agner , 128 F. 3d 166, 178M or eover , m anyof the al l eged f act s i ncl uded i n the br i ef a r e contr adi ct ed bythe 3 r ecor d. Forexampl e, the C om m onw eal th D efe ndant s ’ C onci s e St at ementof M at er i al Fact s cl ear l yart i cul at es thatthe al l eged “ quot a s y s t em” am ount ed t o nothi ng m or e than a m o n th ly av e ra g e th a t a s s is te d s u p e rv is o rs in e n s u ri n g th a t o f f ic e rs u s e d th e irtim e w is e ly. I n fac t , A ubr echtadmi tt ed t o thi s i n hi s ow n depos i t i on, cal l i ng i ta “dynami c” quot a that change d fr om m onth t o m onth. ( A pp. A - 126. ) A ubr echt ’ s br i ef doe s notcont es tor expl ai n thes e cr i t i calfac tual i s s ues , choos i ng i ns t ead t o copyand pas t e s t al e al l egat i ons f ro m h is c o m p la in t. -5- ( 3d C i r . 1997) . D i s r egar di ng thes e w el l - s ett l ed rul es , A ubr echt ’ s br i ef i ncl udes no c ita tio n s to th e re c o rd a n d , a t b e s t, s u rf a c e -l e v e l tr e a tm e n t o f

a u th o ri ty. I n A ubr echt ’ s br i ef, num er ous pages of the “f act s ” s ect i on ar e copi ed di r ect l yfr om the C o m p lai n t w ith o u t ci tat ion s to the rec o rd. L arg e p o rt ion s o f th e “ fa cts” se cti o n are then rec o p ied v erb ati m in the “a rgu m en t” sec ti o n o f th e b ri ef , ag ain w ith o u t r ec o rd ci t at i ons . N otw i ths t andi ng hi s cont ent i on that“genui ne i s s ues of fa ctexi s t [] conce rni ng

3 th e c laim s a d v a n c e d b yth e A p p e llan t in th a t th e e v id e n c e o f re c o rd is s u c h th a t a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ldre tu rn a v e rd ict f o r th e A p p e llan t,” (B r. at 1 4 ), A u b re c h t f a ils to poi ntus t o any fa cts o r ev iden ce in the rec o rd th at co u ld u n d erm ine th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s hol di ng. A d d iti o n a lly , A u b re c h t m a k e s v irtu a llyn o e f f o rt to su p p o rt h is a lleg a tio n s w ith r el evantl egalauthor i ty . Forexampl e, A ubr echtw r i t es : “[a ] publ i c empl oy ee doe s not sp ea k‘as a cit izen ’ w h en h e m ak es a stat em en t ‘ p u rsua n t t o o ff ici al du ti es.’” (A p p ell an t’ s B ri ef at20 (quoti ng G arcett i v. C eball os, 54 7 U . S . 41 0, 42 1 (200 6)) . ) A ft er quoti ng these p h ra se s, A u b re c h t f

a ils to p ro v id e a n ye v id e n c e o r a u th o rityth a t w o u lde x p lain to th is-6-

C o u rt w h y , as a p o lice o f f ice r, h is s tate m e n ts to su p e rio rs r e g a rd in g th e a lleg e d q u o ta s y s t em w oul d notqual i fyas s t at ement s m ade “ pur s uantt o offi ci al dut i es . ” H e makes no a ttem p t to d istin g u ish h is c o n d u c t f ro m th e c o n d u c t ex p licitlye x c lu d e d f ro m c o v e ra g e in G ar cett i . T he l ack of

engage m entw i th the ca s e l aw r ender s hi s br i ef i ns uffi ci entpur s uant t o the R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e and ourl ocalrul es . B ecaus e A ubr echt ’ s s ubm i s s i on d o e s n o t sa tisf

yth e u n d e m a n d in g re q u ire m e n t th a t a b rie f c o n tain m in im a llya d e q u a te “s upport i ng ar gum ent s and ci t at i ons , ” w e w i l l di s m i s s hi s appea l . Si m m ons v. C i tyof P h ila d e lp h ia , 9 4 7 F .2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 6 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). B. E v en if A u b rec h t had fil ed a p rop er b ri ef , w e w o u ld h o ld tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt di d noterri n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o the C om m onw eal th D efe ndant s and the A s s oci at i on. T o s ucce ed i n a § 1983 cl ai m , the def endantm us tal l ege adepr i vat i on of a cons t i tut i onal orfede r al r i ghtand thatthe def endant s act ed under“col orof s t at e l aw . ” A ubr echthas nots how n thatanyof the def endant s vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s or th a t th e A s s o c ia tio n a c te d u n d e r “ c o lo r o f s ta te la w .” A ubr echt ’ s pr i m arycont ent i on on appea l appea r s t o be thatthe i ndi vi dual C om m onw eal th D efe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o fr eedom of spe ech by puni s hi ng hi m fors peaki ng outagai ns tthe “i l l egaland unl aw ful ‘ quot a s y s t em. ’ ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r i ef a t20- 27. ) A s s t at ed above , how ever , the ca s e l aw s i m pl ydoes not s upportthi s al l egat i on. C ons i s t entw i th the Supr eme C ourt ’ s hol di ng i n G ar cett i v.A ubr echtal s o r ai s es a Fi fth A m endmentD ue Pr oces s cl ai m . B ecaus e the al l eged 4 w r ongs i nvol ve onl ys t at e ac t or s , thi s cl ai m w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed. -7- C ebal l os , w e have hel d thatw her e a publ i c empl oy ee makes s t at ement s w i thi n the w orkplace pert ai ning t o h i s or heroff i ci al du t i es, that s peech i s not pr otect ed b ythe F i rs t A m endment . See For akerv. C haff i nch, 501 F. 3d 231, 241- 43 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “I n m aki ng thei rvoi ces hear d up the cha i n of comm and and r eport i ng t o the St at e A udi t orunder o rd e r, [ p lain tiff

s] s p o k e p u rsu a n t to th e ir d u ties a s g o v e rn m e n t em p lo y e e s. . . ” ). H e re , it i s undi s put ed thatA ubr echtconfi ned al l of hi s comm ent s t o the w orkpl ace and thatal l of h is c o m p lain ts d e a lt w ith a sp e c ts o f h is o f f icia l du ties a s a p o lice o f f ice r. T h e re f

o re , h is s peec h r egar di ng the al l eged “ quot a” i s notaff or ded cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i on. A u b re c h t als o ap p e a rs to ra ise F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t ch a llen g e s re g a rd in g h is tr eatm entatthe hands of the C om m onw eal th D efe ndant s . Fi r s t , he ar gues thatthe pol i ce departm entdepr i ved hi m of a pr opertyi nt er es tw i thoutdue pr oces s of l aw bydeny i ng o v e rtim e , sh if

t p re f e re n c e s, sta tio n tra n sf

e rs, e tc. A u b re c h t p o in ts to n o a u th o rityto

4 s upporthi s cont ent i on thatthes e per cei ved s l i ght s i m pl i cat e pr opertyi nt er es t s pr ot ect ed bythe C ons t i tut i on. R egar dl es s , the PSP does pr ovi de a pr oces s , vi a a gr i evanc e p ro c e d u re , tha t A u b re c h t sim p lyc h o se n o t to u se , an d A u b re c h t p o in ts to n o a u th o rity s ugges t i ng thats uch a pr oces s i s i nadequa t e. Second, A ubr echtas s ert s an Equal Pr ot ect i on cl ai m . I ti s w el l - s ett l ed, how ever , thata publ i c empl oy ee c annotas s ertan-8-

E q u a l P ro te c tio n c la im u n d e r th e “ c la s s o f o n e ” th e o ry a s A u b re c h t a tte m p ts to d o . E n q u is t v . O re g o n D e p ’to f A g ri c u ltu re , 5 5 3 U .S . 5 9 1 (2 0 0 8 ). T he D i s tr i ctC ourtal s o pr oper l yconcl uded thatthe A s s oci at i on w as notact i ng under“col orof s t at e l aw . ” The Supre m e C ourthas hel d that“t o cons t i tut e s t at e ac t i on, the depr i vat i on m us tbe caus ed bythe exe r ci s e of s om e r i ghtorpr i vi l ege c r eat ed bythe St at e orbya per s on forw hom the St at e i s r es pons i bl e, and the partychar ged w i th the dep ri vati on m ustbe a p ers on w ho m ayfai rl ybe sai d to be a st at e act or. ” W estv. A tkins, 3 8 7 U .S . 4 2 , 4 8 (1 9 8 8 ) (in tern a l q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). A u b re c h t h a s p o in ted to n o th in g in th e re c o rd su g g e stin g th a t th e A ss o c iatio n a c ted in c o n c e rt w ith th e C o m m o n w e a lth D efen dan t s i n all eged l yviol at i ng his con st i tuti on al ri gh t s. III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.