FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, No. 10-17046
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES LOCAL 4041, in its D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00235-LRH-
individual capacity and its representative RAM
capacity on behalf of its members; District of Nevada,
RANDY LEE COOK, Reno
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
and
ROBERT LEE BIANCHI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel its
Department of Corrections; HOWARD
SKOLNIK, individually and in his official
capacity as Director of the Nevada
Department of Corrections; CARLA
CREVLING, individually and in her
capacity as Personnel Officer of the
Nevada Department of Corrections; PAT
CONMAY, individually and in his official
capacity as Inspector General for the
Nevada Department of Corrections;
WILLIAM DONAT, individually and in
his official capacity as Warden for the
Nevada State Prison,
Defendants - Appellees.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Bianchi's Petition for Panel Re-hearing, filed on December 15, 2011,
is granted in part, without further oral argument.
The Memorandum disposition, filed on December 5, 2011, is amended per the
Amended Memorandum filed concurrently with this Order.
No subsequent petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted
for filing.
2
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, No. 10-17046
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES LOCAL 4041, in its D.C. No.
individual capacity and its representative 3:09-cv-00235-LRH-RAM
capacity on behalf of its members;
RANDY LEE COOK,
AMENDED MEMORANDUM *
Plaintiffs,
and
ROBERT LEE BIANCHI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel its
Department of Corrections; HOWARD
SKOLNIK, individually and in his official
capacity as Director of the Nevada
Department of Corrections; CARLA
CREVLING, individually and in her
capacity as Personnel Officer of the
Nevada Department of Corrections; PAT
CONMAY, individually and in his official
capacity as Inspector General for the
Nevada Department of Corrections;
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
WILLIAM DONAT, individually and in
his official capacity as Warden for the
Nevada State Prison,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicµs, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Robert Bianchi ('Bianchi'), a lieutenant at the Nevada State Prison with the
Nevada Department of Corrections ('NDOC'), appeals the summary judgment
dismissal of his y 1983 action, alleging that he was retaliated against by the NDOC
in violation of his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
y1291, and affirm.
Bianchi contends that NDOC demoted him in retaliation for his involvement
in a no-confidence petition regarding the Assistant Warden of Operations, Walter
Donat, and issued him a letter of reprimand in retaliation for testifying regarding the
petition at a trial. However, Bianchi successfully appealed each disciplinary action,
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
was reinstated to his former ranµ as a lieutenant, and the letter of reprimand was
removed from his file. NDOC alleges that it had legitimate reasons for reprimanding
Bianchi: he had failed to report on or properly supervise a misbehaving subordinate,
and had misused a sicµ day and had given misleading statements about it.
Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, we conclude Bianchi has
not provided evidence sufficient to show any genuine issue of material fact.
Retaliation claims against government employers must be supported by proof that
protected speech was a 'substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment
action.' Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1070-72 (9th Cir. 2009). To do so, a plaintiff
must first present evidence the defendant had µnowledge of the plaintiff's protected
speech. Alpha Energy Savers, Inc. v. Hansen, 381 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir. 2004)
(citing Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 265 F.3d 741, 750-52 (9th Cir.
2001)). Bianchi relies on allegations in his complaint as well as in his
affidavit--conclusory, self-serving, and lacµing any supporting evidence--which fail
to establish a genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment review. F.T.C. v.
Publ'g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3