538 F.Supp.3d 510
D. Maryland2021Background
- Plaintiff Jason Saltz, an animal-rights protester, challenged FPD restrictions at horse-drawn carriage protests on Nov. 2 and Nov. 9, 2019, alleging First Amendment violations (chanting and leafletting).
- The FPD had a written General Order on First Amendment rights and an Operations Plan designating a "First Amendment Area" about 100 feet from the carriage loading zone and directing officers to keep protesters separated from riders.
- On-scene supervisors (Lt. Corbett on Nov. 2; Sgt. Wiles on Nov. 9) told protesters they could be in the designated area and could stand elsewhere but could not chant or leaflet within the riders’ immediate area; Sgt. Wiles said she acted under Capt. Sommers’ direction.
- Saltz alleges viewpoint-based enforcement and also asserted Monell claims against the City (policy, custom/condonation, and failure to train) and supervisory claims against Chief Hargis and Capt. Sommers.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; the court treated the motion as: Rule 12(b)(6) for Monell/supervisory claims and Rule 56 for claims against on-scene officers. The Court: denied summary judgment as to Counts 2 and 4 against Sommers, Wiles, and Corbett; granted dismissal as to Hargis; dismissed Monell claims based on custom and failure-to-train but allowed Monell policy-based claim to proceed; and granted bifurcation of Monell claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were the restrictions content-based (viewpoint discrimination) or content-neutral (time, place, manner)? | Saltz: prohibitions targeted his anti-carriage viewpoint (a heckler's veto); restrictions turned on message, not location. | City: measures were content-neutral safety/time-place-manner rules to prevent violence and protect a captive audience. | Court: factual record permits a plausible claim of viewpoint/content-based regulation (statements by officers show concern about listeners' reaction); could not resolve as a matter of law for defendants. |
| 2. Did the individual officers violate the First Amendment and are they entitled to qualified immunity? | Saltz: officers unlawfully restricted chanting and leafleting based on viewpoint; qualified immunity unavailable because rights are clearly established. | Officers: acted under published General Order and Operations Plan and reasonably believed restrictions lawful. | Court: unresolved fact issues preclude summary judgment; qualified immunity denied at this stage because constitutionality (narrow tailoring) not clearly established on these facts. |
| 3. Supervisory liability of Chief Hargis and Capt. Sommers | Saltz: Sommers (and Hargis) authorized and ratified the deprivations; both should be liable. | Defendants: no personal participation or final policymaking conduct supporting supervisory liability. | Court: dismissed claims as to Hargis (no personal involvement); survived as to Sommers (evidence he directed on-scene conduct). |
| 4. Monell liability (policy, custom/condonation, failure to train) and bifurcation | Saltz: City policies (General Order; Operations Plan) were deficient and caused violations; condonation and training failures also alleged. | City: no final policymaker acts alleged; no widespread/custom practice; training claims are conclusory. | Court: policy-based Monell claim not dismissed at pleading stage; claims based on municipal custom and failure to train dismissed without prejudice; bifurcation of Monell claims granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an unconstitutional policy or custom attributable to the municipality)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (facial content-based distinctions trigger strict scrutiny)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (buffer zones are content-neutral when enforcement depends on location not message)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (test for content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions)
- Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992) (listeners' reaction cannot justify content-based regulation)
- Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal failure to train actionable only where deliberate indifference is shown)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (limits on single-incident failure-to-train Monell liability)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (viewpoint discrimination is an egregious First Amendment violation)