HOFFMAN v. DOMICO
1:23-cv-00060
| N.D. Fla. | May 16, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jerry Hoffman, Jr. entered the Gainesville, Florida Social Security Office on April 15, 2022, filming his interactions despite posted signs prohibiting videography.
- Security directed Hoffman to cease filming and leave; he refused and was eventually escorted out after a physical exchange.
- Police Officer Nicholas Domico responded to the situation, reviewed evidence, and issued Hoffman a trespass warning at the request of Social Security officials.
- The Social Security Administration sent Hoffman a letter barring him from SSA offices (except by appointment) due to his conduct, with instructions for appeal, which Hoffman filed late and without good cause.
- Hoffman brought pro se claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, asserting due process and equal protection violations arising out of the trespass warning and related events.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment; the court addressed cross-motions, relying on video evidence and undisputed material facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due Process (Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment) | Domico denied Hoffman's liberty interest without due process | No protected interest; Plaintiff not denied process | No deprivation; restrictions on filming/lawful process provided |
| Equal Protection | Trespass warning was discriminatory and denied equal access | Plaintiff treated like others; no evidence of discrimination | No different treatment; equal protection claim fails |
| SSA Ban/Access to Benefits | Barred from SSA offices violated rights/denied services | Plaintiff could seek appointment; ban was for disruptive conduct | No denial of services; alternative access was available |
| Lawfulness of Videotaping Restriction | Videotaping inside SSA office is protected First Amendment activity | Restriction posted; filming prohibited by regulation/SSA policy | Restriction is lawful, reasonable, and enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence prevails over contradictory witness testimony at summary judgment)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (First Amendment rights subject to reasonable restrictions)
- Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000) (First Amendment right to record police, subject to reasonable restrictions)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burdens and proof required)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (procedural due process in federal benefits context)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most Bill of Rights protections)
- Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976) (government can control access and use of its property)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection requires similarly situated individuals be treated alike)
- Catron v. City of St. Petersburg, 658 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) (right to access public lands may be forfeited by misconduct)