Opinion ID: 2675964
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tom Jordan

Text: The district court also correctly granted summary judgment for Jordan. Trant alleged that Jordan twice advised the media that Trant was “inept or incompetent, was a liar and was mentally unstable.” Trant, 2012 WL 6690358, at . Trant concedes that these feelings predated any protected speech, but alleges that Jordan’s decision to go to the media was retaliatory. 6 Trant has pointed to no evidence, besides temporal proximity, that Jordan’s comments were substantially motivated by Trant’s protected speech or that Jordan made his comments with a retaliatory intent. Jordan’s comments are plainly 6 There is a fact dispute as to whether Jordan made the alleged statements to the media at all. Jordan asserts that any media quotes attributable to him actually came from an email that Trant circulated to a Board member. For purposes of summary judgment, we will resolve this factual dispute in favor of the non-moving party and assume Jordan went to the media. -21- directed at the ongoing dispute about Trant’s management of the OCME that preceded any protected speech. They bear no relation to Trant’s protected speech, which concerns hiring an attorney and reporting grand jury improprieties to authorities. Indeed, Trant’s statements do not implicate Jordan because they concerned only the Board, of which Jordan was not a member. This fact “implies that [Jordan did not have] any motivation for retaliating against” Trant. Butler, 172 F.3d at 746.