The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently decided a lawsuit brought by a corrections deputy who claimed his constitutional rights to free speech and due process had been violated by the San Diego County Sheriff and others. Rafael Flores, who works as a Corrections Deputy for the San Diego California Sheriff's Department, engaged in a series of heated discussions with the owner of a company that sells and repairs firearms used by law enforcement and security officers. Flores had become enraged that the company had not properly repaired his firearm after repeated and long-term efforts. The result of this conflict was an Internal Affairs investigation by the Sheriff's Department that led to a finding that Flores committed offenses based on "conduct unbecoming" and "abuse of position." He received a 3-day suspension, which was upheld on appeal to the county's Civil Service Commission. Eventually Flores sued in Federal court, claiming alleged violations of his free speech and due process rights under Section 1983 of Title 42. The Federal District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss; whereupon Flores appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This court upheld the lower court's dismissal of the case, stating that "To the extent that the speech leading to Flores's suspension may have been protected under the First Amendment, any abridgement has been fully redressed by the State proceedings. Therefore, we need not decide whether Flores's speech was substantially related to a matter of public concern." The latter issue pertains to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Connick v. Meyers (1983), in which the court held that when a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest, a Federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee's behavior.