UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KATE ADAMS, No. 23-15970

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01499- v. WBS-KJN COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SCOTT JONES, Sheriff, OPINION

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 16, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed September 9, 2024

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Sidney R. Thomas; Dissent by Judge Consuelo M. Callahan 2 ADAMS V. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SUMMARY *

First Amendment / Employment Retaliation

In an interlocutory appeal, the panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of First Amendment retaliation and derivative conspiracy claims brought by Kate Adams, the former Chief of Police for the City of Rancho Cordova, alleging that she was forced to resign from her post over allegations that while working for the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office she sent racist text messages. In evaluating the First Amendment rights of a public employee, the threshold inquiry is whether the statements at issue substantially address a matter of public concern. Speech involves matters of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, or when it is a subject of legitimate news interest. The panel examined the plain language, form, and context of Adams’s two text messages, and held that under the circumstances presented by this case, sending private text messages to two friends during “a friendly, casual text message conversation,” forwarding offensive racist spam images, and complaining about the images does not constitute “a matter of legitimate public concern” within the meaning of Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Adams’s speech was one of personal interest, not public interest. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ADAMS V. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 3

court’s dismissal of Adams’s First Amendment retaliation and conspiracy claims. Dissenting, Judge Callahan stated that Adams should have the chance to hold the County accountable for its harsh reaction to her speech. The public concern test should be applied leniently in this case where Adams’s speech did not fall within the realm of workplace grievances, had no arguable impact on her employer, and touched on matters of social or political concern.

COUNSEL Karin M. Sweigart (argued), Harmeet K. Dhillon, Anthony J. Fusaro Jr., and Jeremiah D. Graham, Dhillon Law Group Inc., San Francisco, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Dylan de Wit (argued) and David Norton, Porter Scott, Sacramento, California; for Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION S.R. THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

In this interlocutory appeal, we consider whether sending private text messages to two friends during “a friendly, casual text message conversation,” forwarding offensive racist spam images, and complaining about the images constitutes “a matter of legitimate public concern” under Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and Hernandez v. City of Phoenix, 43 F.4th 966 (9th Cir. 2022). Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude 4 ADAMS V. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

that the speech does not, and we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claim. “We review a decision on a motion to dismiss for f