Griffin v. Bryant, 677 F. App'x 458

Pro se plaintiff William N. Griffin sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment violations after the Village of Ruidoso Council refused to place him on meeting agendas.
Griffin was allowed to speak during the council meetings’ "Public Input" period and did so four times; he was not barred from attending meetings.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on most claims but declared and enjoined one restriction (prohibiting negative mention of Village personnel/governing body during Public Input) as unconstitutional; that relief is not appealed.
Griffin argued denial of agenda placement violated his First Amendment right to speak to the council during the agenda portion; he also asserted the agenda and Public Input were distinct forums requiring separate analysis.
The magistrate and district courts found agenda-denial did not prevent Griffin from addressing the same audience at the meeting and noted only a five-minute Public Input time limit differentiated the forums.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of placement on agenda violated First Amendment	Griffin: agenda placement denial denied his opportunity to speak on his chosen topic and targeted the agenda audience	Defendants: Griffin could speak during Public Input to the same audience; he was not barred from meetings or speaking	Court: No violation — Griffin was permitted to speak during Public Input to the same audience
Whether agenda portion and Public Input are separate forums requiring different scrutiny	Griffin: they are distinct forums with different rights attached	Defendants: same meeting/audience; treating them as separate forums is unsupported	Court: Rejected Griffin’s two-forum premise as not meaningfully limiting his access or audience
Whether five-minute Public Input time limit unconstitutionally restricted speech	Griffin: time limit reduced his preferred forum and time	Defendants: time limit is a reasonable time regulation to preserve orderly meetings	Court: Time limit constitutional (comports with prior Tenth Circuit precedent)
Procedural: entitlement to summary judgment without discovery	Griffin (on appeal): district court erred by deciding without discovery	Defendants: issue forfeited below; Griffin agreed to stay discovery	Court: Forfeited — Griffin failed to raise below or argue plain error on appeal

Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (upholding short time limit on council meeting public comments)
Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640 (1981) (First Amendment does not guarantee access at all times/places desired)
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (forum analysis framework for government property)
Summum v. Callaghan, 130 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 1997) (discussion of limited public forum as a type of nonpublic forum)
PeTA v. Rasmussen, 298 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2002) (forum-dependent standards for analyzing speech restrictions)
Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011) (forfeiture and plain-error standard for issues not raised below)
Silverton Snowmobile Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 433 F.3d 772 (10th Cir. 2006) (failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives it)