
    Peter C. HANSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark MALLOY and State of Nevada, ex rel., its Department of Public Safety, Nevada Highway Patrol, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17070.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 17, 2013.
    Filed May 31, 2013.
    Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Law Office of Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael D. Jensen, Esquire, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Attorney General’s Office Motor Vehicle & Public Safety Department, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Edward R. Korman, District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Peter C. Hansen appeals the district court’s summary judgment against him on his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. We affirm.

The First Amendment does not empower public employees to constitutionalize the employee grievance. Desrochers v. City of San Bernardino, 572 F.3d 703, 718 (9th Cir.2009). If the employee does not speak on a matter of public concern, then his claim fails. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). The public concern requirement of a retaliation claim is the first step in the fivestep sequential inquiry set forth in Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir.2009). Whether the employee spoke on a matter of public concern “must be determined by the content, form, and context” of the statements. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Hansen’s internal grievances concerned his personal employee evaluations and discipline, not any purported effect on the public or even other officers. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that Hansen’s grievances did not constitute a matter of public concern. Accordingly, the decision to grant summary judgment was correct.

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