Salazar v. Morales ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50114
Summary Calendar
ED SALAZAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAN MORALES, Attorney General
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-95-CV-743
- - - - - - - - - -
October 2, 1996
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Appellant Ed Salazar appeals the dismissal of his
Section 1983 complaint against Defendant-Appellee, Dan Morales.
Assuming that the facts of Salazar’s complaint could be construed
as supporting a supervisory liability theory, the dismissal was
nonetheless warranted as Salazar has pleaded no facts showing
constitutional injury. Accordingly, we affirm on this ground.
See Bickford v. International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-50114
- 2 -
(5th Cir. 1981).
The pleadings, letters, and other communications he relies
upon as constitutionally protected speech were produced in his
role as assistant attorney general; they do not constitute the
speech of a private citizen upon matters of public concern. See
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Salazar’s free
association claim fails since he alleged no current political
rivalry between Morales and former attorney general Mattox. See
Correa v. Fischer, 982 F.2d 935, 933 (5th Cir. 1993). Salazar
cannot claim he was denied a liberty interest as his complaint
does not allege defamation. Mere discharge, without specific
defamatory charges, will not implicate a liberty interest.
Rosenstein v. Dallas, 876 F.2d 392, 396 n.3 (5th Cir. 1989),
reinstated in pertinent part, 901 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1990)(en
banc), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 855 (1990). Finally, Salazar
cannot assert a property interest as the personnel policies of
the attorney general’s office state that an assistant attorney
general serves at the pleasure of the Attorney General and that
the personnel policies do not create a property right. Absent
state law, contract, or personnel policies conveying an
expectation of continued employment, no such expectation is
conveyed by the Constitution itself. Board of Regents v. Roth,
408 U.S. 564, 578 (1972).
AFFIRMED.