Hussein Hussein v. Glenn Miller ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 08-15436
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 06-CV-00710-LRH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GLENN MILLER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hussein S. Hussein appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim and a
state law defamation claim arising out of statements made by fellow faculty
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
member Glenn Miller. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo, Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hussein’s First
Amendment retaliation claim because Hussein failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Miller’s statements are actionable under § 1983. See
Blair v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 608 F.3d 540, 543-46 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing
requirements for a First Amendment retaliation claim); Gini v. Las Vegas Metro.
Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[D]amage to reputation is not
actionable under § 1983 unless it is accompanied by ‘some more tangible
interests.’” (citation omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hussein’s
defamation claim because a reasonable person, hearing Miller’s statements in
context, would be likely to understand the statements to be an expression of
Miller’s opinion and not a statement of existing fact. See Pegasus v. Reno
Newspapers, Inc., 57 P.3d 82, 87-88 (Nev. 2003) (discussing factors for
determining whether a statement is actionable for purposes of defamation claim).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-15436