Sammons v. McCarty, 1:20-cv-03010

Plaintiff Vincent S. Sammons, a politically active Cecil County resident, brought claims against county officials and the county itself for alleged violations of his speech rights in three contexts: a Facebook page associated with the County Executive, a public budget meeting via Zoom, and subsequent email blocking by the county.
Plaintiff claimed he was blocked from posting on the McCarthy Facebook Page, had his video feed terminated during a budget hearing while displaying critical political signage, and was later blocked from communicating with the county via email after contentious exchanges.
The defendants included former County Executive Alan J. McCarthy, several county administrators, the County Attorney (Allison), the Public Information Officer (Lyall), IT personnel, and the County itself.
After cross-motions for summary judgment, the court had to apply recent Supreme Court precedent clarifying when social-media activity by public officials constitutes state action under § 1983, as well as determine issues of viewpoint discrimination, retaliation, and municipal liability.
The court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for defendants, and denied plaintiff’s motion; several claims proceed to trial, particularly those regarding the email block and the video disruption at the budget meeting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Facebook Page Viewpoint Discrimination	Blocking Sammons on McCarthy's page was state action and violated 1st Amend.	Page was campaign/private, not official; no state action; not actionable	No state action: Defendants’ summary judgment granted
Budget Meeting: Audio Disruption	Plaintiff was muted to suppress critical speech (1st Amend. violation)	No evidence any defendant muted or impeded audio	No evidence; summary judgment for defendants
Budget Meeting: Video Disruption	Video feed terminated for viewpoint reasons (signs critical of County Exec.)	Feed blocked for disruptive presentation, not content; not final policymakers	Disputed facts require trial; summary judgment denied
County Email System Blocking	Blocking plaintiff's emails was 1st Amend. retaliation & petition violation	Restriction was content-neutral, other petition methods available	Disputed facts require trial; summary judgment denied
Municipal/Official Capacity Liability	Officials were final policymakers; county liable under §1983 and state law	Action wasn’t policy; officials not final policymakers for these actions	Summary judgment for county/officials on some claims; other claims to trial

Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2019) (state action test for public officials’ social media)
Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802 (2019) (distinguishes government from private action for 1st Amend.)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official capacity liability treated as claim against municipality)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (content-based speech restrictions presumptively unconstitutional)
Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) (right to regulate time, place, manner of speech)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (municipal liability for single decision by policymaker)
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) (First Amendment right to petition government)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (personal involvement required for §1983 liability)
Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. 388 (2019) (content and viewpoint discrimination prohibited under First Amendment)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (color of state law requirement in § 1983)