
    Jayendra A. SHAH, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-56284.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 7, 2012.
    
    Filed March 16, 2012.
    Frank Alan Weiser, Esquire, Independent Counsel, Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Avi Burkwitz, Esquire, George Ernest Peterson, Esquire, George McFarlin Peterson, Esquire, Peterson & Bradford, Burbank, CA, Martin Stein, Esquire, Cynthia E. Tobisman, Esquire, Greines Martin Stein & Richland, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities” under color of state law. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and indications of alteration removed). A local government’s retaliation against a plaintiff for suing the local government may deprive the plaintiff of his First Amendment right to petition the courts. Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir.1989). A public employee’s litigation, however, “must involve a matter of public concern in order to be protected by either the Petition Clause or the Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” Rendish v. City of Tacoma, 123 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2488, 2493-2501, 180 L.Ed.2d 408 (2011).

Plaintiffs litigation involved his private employment grievances, not matters of public concern. Additionally, Plaintiffs complaint does not adequately allege that his prior litigation against the County was “a substantial or motivating factor in the [County’s] decision” not to ratify Plaintiffs settlement. Soranno’s Gasco, 874 F.2d at 1314 (internal quotation marks removed). Accordingly, the County’s conduct did not deprive Plaintiff of his First Amendment rights.

The district court’s order explains why the County’s conduct did not deprive Plaintiff of his Due Process and Equal Protection rights. We agree with the district court’s reasoning and conclusions, and therefore need not repeat them here.

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