Galena Ex Rel. Erie County v. Leone
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7562
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Daniel T. Galena, Erie County resident, sued Fiore Leone and Erie County Council members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment violations arising from his ejection from a Council meeting.
- The March 20, 2007 meeting involved public comments about a Council procedure for ordinances and alleged Sunshine Act/Administrative Code noncompliance.
- Galena routinely spoke at hearings; Leone, as Council chair, ordered Galena removed after an out-of-order exchange while Galena challenged the Council's procedure.
- The District Court later vacated the jury verdict for Galena and granted Leone judgment as a matter of law; Galena's post-trial and fee motions were denied.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit reviews the grant of judgment as a matter of law de novo, focusing on whether substantial evidence supports a constitutional violation.
- The court ultimately held the evidence did not establish that Leone acted with viewpoint or identity animus or that the public forum restriction was unlawfully applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Leone's removal of Galena motivated by content/identity? | Galena argues Leone acted with animus toward his speech or identity. | Leone maintained he enforced a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction in a limited public forum. | No; no substantial evidence of improper motive. |
| Is the Administrative Code's public-comment restriction valid in a limited public forum? | Galena contends the restriction deprived him of an adequate alternative channel. | Leone's enforcement provided adequate alternatives and was reasonable. | Yes; restriction reasonable and adequately supplemented by other avenues. |
| Does the Sunshine Act affect the First Amendment ruling or forum classification here? | Galena claims the Sunshine Act expands rights and undermines the restriction. | Sunshine Act issues were waived/preserved improperly and do not control the First Amendment ruling. | Waived; Sunshine Act issues not controlling for the First Amendment claim. |
| Should the jury have been instructed to consider alternative communication channels under Ward/McTernan? | Galena contends alternative channels were insufficient or improperly treated as adequate. | Alternative channels were available and the issue is appropriately handled as a question of law. | Not error; adequate alternatives supported as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth, 436 F.3d 397 (3d Cir. 2006) (policy on motive and timing in removal from meetings; credibility of motive plays a role)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (S. Ct. 2000) (weighing evidence; credibility of witnesses in verdicts)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (S. Ct. 1989) (time, place, and manner restrictions must be reasonable and leave alternatives)
- Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (S. Ct. 1949) (content vs. conduct; disturbance not necessary for restriction validity)
- Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana, 385 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2004) (limited public forum; content-neutral restrictions permissible if reasonable)
- McTernan v. City of York, 564 F.3d 636 (3d Cir. 2009) (subsidiary elements of time/place/manner reasonableness questions of fact)
- Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 67 F.3d 266 (9th Cir. 1995) (timing of comments; restrictions upheld when not suppressing content)
- Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (S. Ct. 1986) (public-moral considerations and alternative channels of speech)