Edith Milestone v. City of Monroe, 665 F.3d 774

Milestone was expelled from the Behring Senior Center in Monroe, Wisconsin after an Oct 2008 incident and was told she could not attend Center programs under the Center's Code of Conduct.
The Senior Citizens Board affirmed the director's expulsion with a modification as to duration and informed Milestone of a right to appeal to the Common Council within 30 days.
Milestone did not appeal or enroll in an Anger Management program; instead she filed a §1983 action seeking damages and challenging the Code and expulsion on First Amendment and due process grounds.
A magistrate judge granted summary judgment for the City, holding the Director and the Board were not final policymakers for Monell liability and that Milestone failed to show a municipal policy causing the violation.
The Seventh Circuit reviews de novo and considers whether final policymaking authority rested in Derrickson or the Board, and whether the Code is facially valid under First Amendment and due-process principles.
The court ultimately affirms the judgment, distinguishing the liability analysis for the expulsion itself from the facial constitutionality of the Code as city policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Derrickson or the Board had final policymaking authority.	Milestone contends either Derrickson or the Board were final policymakers for the City.	City argues neither Derrickson nor the Board had final policymaking authority; review by higher officials or the Council was required.	Milestone cannot establish Monell liability; neither actor had final policymaking authority.
Whether the Code of Conduct is facially constitutional under First Amendment.	Milestone asserts the Code is facially invalid for viewpoint discrimination and overbreadth.	City asserts the Code is a content-neutral time/place/manner regulation that is narrowly tailored and protects Center decorum.	Code is content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and not overbroad; facial challenge fails.
Whether the Code's enforcement violated Milestone's due process or vagueness protections.	Milestone claims lack of notice and vague standards deprived due process; the rule is vague.	Code provides clear, decoro norms with manageable sanctions; penalties are modest and not arrestable.	Due process and vagueness challenges fail; Code is sufficiently clear for its local, decorum-based aims.

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (establishes municipal liability requires final policy maker or official policy)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (final policymaker authority required for §1983 liability)
Jett v. Dallas Ind. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (state/local law determines final policymaker status)
Darchak v. City of Chi. Bd. of Educ., 580 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2009) (final policymaker determination when authority is ultimate and reviewable)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (time/place/manner regulations may be content-neutral and narrowly tailored)
Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (content-neutral regulations regarding speech in sensitive contexts may be permissible)