568 F. App'x 534
10th Cir.2014Background
- Allen Galbreath, a former ballet dancer, performed morning therapeutic ballet in an Oklahoma City park wearing high heels, carrying a ~3-foot cane and a red handbag; a 911 caller reported concern about "a man in high heels with a big stick and a purse."
- Officer Kevin Parton responded, observed Galbreath dance with his cane, handcuffed him as a precaution after finding an air pistol in his bag, and arrested him for disorderly conduct under Okla. City Ord. § 30-81(b) ("causes public alarm without justification"); charges were later dismissed.
- Galbreath sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) arrest without probable cause (Fourth Amendment) and (2) the municipal disorderly conduct ordinance is unconstitutionally vague (Due Process) and sought damages and declaratory relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Officer Parton on qualified immunity grounds and to the City on the vagueness claim; it also denied Galbreath prospective relief for lack of standing.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed qualified immunity (Galbreath conceded no clearly established law) but reversed the City’s summary judgment on the as-applied void-for-vagueness claim and remanded, holding a reasonable jury could find Galbreath lacked fair notice his conduct was punishable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Parton is entitled to qualified immunity for arresting Galbreath for disorderly conduct | Galbreath: arrest lacked probable cause; constitutional violation occurred | Parton: entitled to qualified immunity because law was not clearly established | Court: Affirmed qualified immunity — Galbreath failed to show the law was clearly established |
| Whether the City can be liable under Monell for an ordinance applied to Galbreath | Galbreath: an as-applied vagueness finding can impose municipal liability because the city’s ordinance was enforced against him | City: liability requires a policy or pattern; a single application cannot create municipal liability | Court: Rejected City’s argument — an unconstitutional application of a municipal ordinance can support Monell liability |
| Whether Okla. City Ord. § 30-81(b) is unconstitutionally vague as applied (adequate notice) | Galbreath: ordinance fails to give fair notice that singing/dancing with a cane in high heels could "cause public alarm without justification" | City: reasonable person could view conduct as alarming; summary judgment appropriate | Court: Reversed summary judgment — viewing evidence for Galbreath, reasonable jury could find lack of fair notice |
| Whether the ordinance vests excessive discretion in enforcement (arbitrary enforcement) | Galbreath: terms like "public alarm" and "without justification" invite arbitrary enforcement | City: enforcement was reasonable under the circumstances | Court: Did not decide on arbitrary-enforcement element; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 for unconstitutional laws or policies)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may choose order of qualified immunity analysis)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (summary judgment requires viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Christensen v. Park City Mun. Corp., 554 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2009) (as-applied invalidity of ordinances can yield municipal liability)
- Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971) (vagueness concerns where ordinance fails to define prohibited conduct)
- City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) (ordinance impermissibly vague where terms fail to provide fair notice)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (due process vagueness standards for penal statutes)