Frank Teesdale v. City of Chicago
690 F.3d 829
7th Cir.2012Background
- St. Symphorosa's festival in Chicago used a city permit to close adjacent streets to vehicles but kept streets open for pedestrians; the event was not city-sponsored.
- Security for the festival included paid guards and off‑duty Chicago police officers who were parishioners, with Kolasinski (a parishioner and officer) leading security.
- Garfield Ridge Baptist Church attendees engaged in street ministry at the festival, including Pastor Teesdale using a bullhorn and distributing literature.
- Teesdale was arrested for trespass after security claimed disruption; police arrested him based on assertions from festival officials; the charges were later dismissed.
- In 2009 Garfield Church sued the City and officers, seeking First and Fourth Amendment relief and a declaratory judgment; the district court issued standby orders for 2009 and 2010, and later granted summary judgment in part against the City on standing and policy issues.
- The court of appeals ultimately held that the City's 2009 TRO argument did not establish an official Monell policy and that plaintiffs lacked standing, vacating the district court judgment and remanding for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the City’s July 2009 TRO response establish Monell liability? | Garfield asserts the 2009 reply reflects an official policy. | City contends it was only a litigation position, not a policy. | No official policy; mere litigation position insufficient. |
| Do plaintiffs have standing to seek prospective relief for a pre-enforcement policy claim? | There is an ongoing credible threat to First Amendment rights. | No concrete, imminent injury shown; policy not shown. | Lack of standing; no ongoing policy. |
| Does Pembaur control whether a lawyer’s incorrect argument can create Monell liability? | Argument constitutes final policy decision. | Counsel's brief is not a final policy choice. | Pembaur not satisfied; not enough to allege official policy. |
| Was Hurley controlling for the festival as a private-sponsored event in a public forum? | Hurley limited free-speech exclusion. | Hurley applies if festival is akin to a parade; not here. | Hurley distinguished; festival is public forum; cannot exclude based on content. |
| Did the district court err in inferring an official policy from standby orders and failure to revoke Hurley position? | Standby orders and non-revocation implied policy. | Standby orders do not prove a lasting policy. | Insufficient to establish Monell policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1995) (parade is a First Amendment expression; content can be controlled by organizers)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (liability requires final policymaker to make a deliberate choice)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (official policy or widespread custom necessary for §1983 liability)
- Estate of Sims v. County of Bureau, 506 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2007) (official policy can be through policy, custom, or final policymaker)
- Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (Hurley does not control private-sponsored events in public fora)