his supervisors of the disposition of a pending case was speech made pursuant to his official duties. Id. at 420-21, 126 S.Ct. 1951. It reasoned that writing the memo was part of the prosecutor’s “daily professional activities” as a government employee, distinguishable from “the kind of activity engaged in by citizens who do not work for the government.” Id. at 422, 423, 126 S.Ct. 1951. Finding that the prosecutor did not speak as a citizen, therefore, “simply reflect[ed] the exercise of employer control over what the em v. Guarnieri, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2488, 180 L.Ed.2d 408 (2011), and where an employee’s technically-off-duty speech related to “special knowledge” or “experience” acquired through his de facto job duties, Gorum, 561 F.3d at 185-86 (internal quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). “[WJhether a particular incident of speech is
holding that a student has a right to counsel in a university disciplinary hearing where there is a pending criminal charge for the same incident but noting that the attorneys role at the disciplinary hearing is limited to safeguarding the students rights at the criminal proceeding and not to affecting the outcome of the disciplinary hearing holding that a prison disciplinary committee violated inmates rights to procedural due process by refusing to call their witnesses even though the disciplinary hearing took place in the aftermath of a riot and the resulting disciplinary caseload was ex tremely heavy holding that an inmates mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary report imposing 15 days disciplinary confinement was a collateral criminal proceeding because the disciplinary confinement limited petitioners ability to earn gain time holding that where the conviction was final the disciplinary commission was not authorized to assume the roles of both an accusatory tribunal and the ultimate determiner of guilt and that the separation of responsibility between the disciplinary board and the disciplinary commission provides constitutional due process holding that a professors speech at a students disciplinary hearing was made within his official duties since the professor had special knowledge and experience with the universitys disciplinary code as a de facto advisor to students with disciplinary issues