Spanish Church of God of Holyoke, Mass., Inc. v. Scott
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70187
D. Mass.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are Spanish Church of God of Holyoke, Mass., Inc., Church of God International, Inc., and Bishop Garcia; Defendants are City of Holyoke and Chief Scott.
- Two counts remain: Count One under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment free exercise claim and Count Two under Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.
- Court has jurisdiction via consent to magistrate judge; motion for summary judgment on remaining claims.
- Material facts: police responded to a church dispute in Dec 2009; a trespass notice was served on Garcia; ownership and control of church property disputed between the church entities.
- Defendants issued/communicated a trespass order; Plaintiffs allege enforcement violated First Amendment rights.
- Court analyzes whether the trespass notice was validly issued and whether municipal policy or official conduct violated constitutional rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCRA claims against City and Chief in official capacity survive | City/Scott violated First Amendment rights | Municipality/official cannot be sued under MCRA | Granted summary judgment for City and Chief on Count Two |
| Whether §1983 claim against City and Chief survives | Chief Scott enforced a violation of free exercise | No municipal policy or final policymaker liability shown | Granted summary judgment for City and Chief on Count One |
| Whether the trespass notice was validly authorized under the statute | Notice issued by Bishop Garcia or inappropriate control; form undermines validity | Notice by person in lawful control is authorized; not required to be a court order | Notice valid; statute permits notices by person in lawful control; no constitutional defect shown |
| Whether Chief Scott had final policymaking authority to establish a municipal policy on trespass notices | Scott's authority constitutes final policy; policy violated the First Amendment | No identifiable discriminatory policy; enforcement neutral | No evidence of a challenged policy; liability not shown |
| Whether Chief Scott's enforcement of the Notice violated the First Amendment | Enforcement against religious actors infringed free exercise rights | Enforcement of valid, neutral trespass notices is constitutionally permissible | No First Amendment violation; enforcement of valid trespass order did not impermissibly burden religion |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. LaForce, 288 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2002) (municipality not a 'person' under MCRA)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (final policymaker liability requires deliberate action by policy makers)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (local government liability requires policy or custom)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity claims treated as municipal entities; (policies and final authority))
- Serbian East Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976) (First Amendment defers to ecclesiastical decisions on doctrine)
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (religious beliefs do not excuse compliance with neutral laws)
- United States v. Acevedo-Delgado, 167 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.P.R. 2001) (First Amendment not violated by enforcement of neutral trespass statute)
- Commonwealth v. Cartwright, 447 Mass. 1015 (2006) (enforcement of trespass not precluded when ownership disputes exist)