five factors in order to state a valid First Amendment claim. Id. at 1067 n.4. 1. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs Shane Penrod, Gracie Reyna, Addison Fordham, Lisa Littlefield, and Kim McCormick’s First Amendment retaliation claims because none of these five Plaintiffs spoke on a matter of public concern as a private citizen. Penrod, Reyna, Fordham, and Lit-tlefield are rehabilitation and security officers who work closely with the juvenile detainees at IDJC and are responsible for ensuring the safety and security of both juveniles ■ and fellow staff. Their safety-related speech, raised only internally, fell within the scope of their job duties and is not protected by the First Amendment. See Hagen v. City of Eugene, 736 F.3d 1251, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, McCormick’s internal speech
holding that police officer who vocalized safety concerns about accidental discharges of firearms spoke pursuant to his job duties as a public employee holding police officer is a public official holding that a police officer speaking to a public official about his concerns over public safety issues is speaking in his capacity  as a police officer and not as a citizen holding that police officers criticism of his departments handling of a sniper incident was protected speech because the officer spoke in his capacity as police union president holding that garcetti barred claims involving speech not necessarily required by the plaintiffs job duties but nevertheless  related to his job duties