Murray v. Washington State Department of Ecology

Ninth Circuit

Murray v. Washington State Department of Ecology

334 F. App'x 824

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 2009

DocketNo. 08-35206

StatusPublished

This text of 334 F. App'x 824 (Murray v. Washington State Department of Ecology) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murray v. Washington State Department of Ecology, 334 F. App'x 824 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

Dennis Murray appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, who were Murray’s superiors at the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Department”) during the relevant period. Reviewing the district court’s order de novo, Posey v. Lake Pend Oreille Sch. Dist. No. 84, 546 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.2008), we affirm.¹

Even assuming that Murray spoke as a private citizen on matters of public concern and that his speech was a motivating factor for the adverse employment actions taken against him, we conclude under the Pickering balancing test that the defendants had adequate justification for treating Murray differently from other members of the general public. See Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1070-71 (9th Cir.2009). The Department’s interests in effecting the timely and efficient completion of the TMDL process and otherwise carrying out its mission in an effective manner outweighed Murray’s First Amendment interests. See Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 675, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994) (plurality); Dible v. City of Chandler, 515 F.3d 918, 928 (9th Cir.2008). For similar reasons we conclude that the “prior restraints” imposed on Murray were justi[825]*825fied under the Pickering balancing test. See Gibson v. Office of Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 920, 926-27 (9th Cir.2009) (applying the Pickering balancing test in evaluating pri- or restraint on a public employee’s First Amendment activity); accord Berry v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 447 F.3d 642, 649-50 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we conclude that Defendants did not violate Murray’s constitutional rights.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

Dennis Murray appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, who were Murray’s superiors at the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Department”) during the relevant period. Reviewing the district court’s order de novo, Posey v. Lake Pend Oreille Sch. Dist. No. 84, 546 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.2008), we affirm.¹

Even assuming that Murray spoke as a private citizen on matters of public concern and that his speech was a motivating factor for the adverse employment actions taken against him, we conclude under the Pickering balancing test that the defendants had adequate justification for treating Murray differently from other members of the general public. See Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1070-71 (9th Cir.2009). The Department’s interests in effecting the timely and efficient completion of the TMDL process and otherwise carrying out its mission in an effective manner outweighed Murray’s First Amendment interests. See Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 675, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994) (plurality); Dible v. City of Chandler, 515 F.3d 918, 928 (9th Cir.2008). For similar reasons we conclude that the “prior restraints” imposed on Murray were justi[825]*825fied under the Pickering balancing test. See Gibson v. Office of Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 920, 926-27 (9th Cir.2009) (applying the Pickering balancing test in evaluating pri- or restraint on a public employee’s First Amendment activity); accord Berry v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 447 F.3d 642, 649-50 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we conclude that Defendants did not violate Murray’s constitutional rights.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 F. App'x 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-washington-state-department-of-ecology-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack