Salvador Reza v. Russell Pearce
806 F.3d 497
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Salvador Reza, a community organizer, attended a high‑profile Arizona Senate hearing on an immigration bill and sat in an overflow room where audience members applauded and booed.
- Senate officers and Senator Russell Pearce identified Reza as one of several allegedly loud participants; officers asked him to quiet down and claim he responded confrontationally.
- Two days later Pearce directed officers to bar Reza from the State Senate building; when Reza attempted to enter to meet a senator he was arrested for trespass.
- Reza sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourth Amendment violations and discriminatory targeting; the district court granted summary judgment for Pearce (qualified immunity), dismissed claims against Officers Trapp and Burton, and entered a protective order limiting discovery about Pearce’s association with J.T. Ready.
- The Ninth Circuit (majority) reversed summary judgment for Pearce (First Amendment question remanded), affirmed dismissal as to the officers (they had probable cause to arrest under a facially valid exclusion order), and affirmed the protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether barring Reza from Senate building violated First Amendment | Reza: exclusion was retaliation for criticism and/or ethnicity and was an unreasonable restriction in a limited public forum | Pearce: exclusion was viewpoint neutral, aimed at preserving decorum and safety because Reza disrupted proceedings | Reversed district court; triable factual disputes exist and, viewed for Reza, Pearce’s conduct violated clearly established First Amendment law — remanded |
| Forum classification | Reza: Building is public forum for political expression | Pearce: forum is subject to decorum rules | Court: Building is a limited public forum; decorum rules apply but must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral |
| Whether restriction was reasonable and viewpoint neutral | Reza: blanket ban (and arrest) exceeded reasonable measures; proceedings were not actually disrupted; bar foreclosed access to representatives | Pearce: neutral policy to exclude disruptive attendees and protect safety and proceedings | Court: policy was facially neutral, but disputed facts about actual disruption and reasonableness preclude summary judgment for Pearce |
| Qualified immunity for arresting officers (Trapp & Burton) | Reza: officers violated his rights by enforcing an unlawful exclusion and arresting him | Officers: they acted on a facially valid order from Senate President and had probable cause for trespass | Affirmed: officers entitled to qualified immunity because they enforced a facially valid exclusion order and had probable cause to arrest for trespass |
| Protective order regarding J.T. Ready discovery | Reza: evidence of Pearce’s ties to a white supremacist is relevant to discriminatory motive | Pearce: testimony would be prejudicial and cumulative | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; probative value low and likely Rule 403 exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1983) (limited public forum doctrine; restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral)
- White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1990) (public meeting decorum rules and removal for disruption upheld when limited to actual disruption)
- Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 67 F.3d 266 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding ejection for multiple actual disruptions)
- Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2010) (actual disruption required to eject; courts cannot define disruption to include non‑disruption)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity framework: two prongs — constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (doctrine limiting how courts identify "clearly established" law)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (U.S. 1985) (reasonableness standard for access to nonpublic fora)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (officials can be on notice of constitutional violation even in novel circumstances)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (qualified immunity analysis origins; context for probable cause/reasonableness)