Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville, 841 F. Supp. 2d 943

Plaintiffs, described as impecunious, filed a civil rights suit alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations based on Charlottesville's solicitation ordinance on the Downtown Mall.
The ordinance, Charlottesville City Code §28-31(a)(5),(6),(9), bans soliciting from outdoor café patrons, from those conducting business at vendor tables, or within 50 feet of two cross streets when open to traffic.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and fees; the City moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
The court held Plaintiffs have standing but granted dismissal for failure to state a claim.
The Downtown Mall is treated as a traditional public forum; the ordinance is content-neutral, applying time/place/manner restrictions that leave other channels of communication open.
On balance, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and declaratory/injunctive relief was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the ordinance content-neutral in a traditional public forum?	Plaintiffs argue it suppresses impoverished speech based on content.	City contends the ordinance is content-neutral and narrowly tailored.	Yes, content-neutral and narrowly tailored.
Do Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the ordinance?	Plaintiffs allege injury in fact from chilled First Amendment activity.	City asserts lack of injury in fact since no plaintiff alleged violations yet.	Plaintiffs have standing.
Is Subsections (a)(5)-(6) vague or unconstitutionally vague?	Subsections are vague, granting police broad discretion.	Subsections provide minimal guidelines and notice.	Not unconstitutionally vague; sufficiently definite.
Does the complaint state a claim that warrants relief?	The ordinance violates First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face and as applied.	Regulation is permissible as time/place/manner restraint in a public forum.	No, claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Is declaratory or injunctive relief warranted?	They seek ongoing relief protecting free-speech rights.	Relief denied due to failure to state a claim.	Not warranted; relief denied.

Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1980) (begging/solicitation protected speech; non-content differences)
Loper v. N.Y. Police Dept., 999 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1993) (speech solicitation and its message protected)
Kokinda v. United States, 497 U.S. 720 (U.S. 1990) (solicitation as protected speech; public forum regulation)
Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1983) (time, place, and manner restrictions in public fora)
Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1988) (public street as a public forum; regulation to protect audience)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (content-neutral regulation must be narrowly tailored)
Schleifer by Schleifer v. City of Charlottesville, 159 F.3d 843 (4th Cir. 1998) (judicial restraint on facial vagueness challenges)
Smith v. Fort Lauderdale, 177 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 1999) (comparable regulatory reasonableness standard for injunctions)
Benham v. City of Charlotte, 635 F.3d 129 (4th Cir. 2011) (standing and injury-in-fact for First Amendment claims)