Tom Heaney v. Christopher Roberts, 846 F.3d 795

Background

Tom Heaney spoke during public-comment at a Jefferson Parish council meeting in Gretna, Louisiana; Councilman Christopher Roberts presided.
Roberts interrupted Heaney after Heaney yielded temporarily to the Parish Attorney, then refused to return remaining time and ordered Heaney removed for being "hostile."
Gretna officer Ronald Black, acting as sergeant-at-arms, escorted Heaney out; Heaney alleges he was shoved, seized by the arms, and forcibly ejected and injured.
Heaney sued Roberts and Black under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First and Fourth Amendments), asserted a Louisiana free-speech claim, and sued Black in state tort (battery, negligence, false arrest); municipal employers were named vicariously liable.
The district court granted summary judgment in part: denied Roberts summary judgment on First Amendment and state free-speech claims; denied Black summary judgment on battery and negligence; granted summary judgment for Black on First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, false arrest, and for punitive damages against Roberts.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit dismissed Roberts’s interlocutory appeal on the First Amendment issue for lack of jurisdiction (factual dispute), affirmed grants of summary judgment for Black on First and Fourth Amendment and false arrest, affirmed denial of punitive damages, and dismissed Black’s cross-appeal on state torts for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Roberts violated First Amendment by viewpoint discrimination and if he lacks qualified immunity	Heaney: Roberts silenced and ejected him based on viewpoint while speaking on an approved topic and within allotted time	Roberts: acted in official capacity enforcing forum rules/time; not a viewpoint-based restriction	Dismissed Roberts’s interlocutory appeal because genuine factual dispute over Roberts’s motive (viewpoint) exists; if motivated improperly, Roberts would have violated clearly established law
Whether punitive damages against Roberts are permissible	Heaney: Roberts’s conduct warrants punitive damages for malicious or reckless indifference	Roberts: conduct not sufficiently malicious or recklessly indifferent to permit punitive damages	Affirmed district court: evidence insufficient to show requisite evil motive or reckless indifference for punitive damages
Whether Black violated First Amendment and is entitled to qualified immunity	Heaney: Black effectuated the violation by seizing and removing him and cannot hide behind Roberts’s order	Black: as sergeant-at-arms, he reasonably followed the presiding officer’s removal request and need not second-guess motives	Affirmed: Black entitled to qualified immunity on First Amendment claim because his conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law
Whether Black’s actions violated Fourth Amendment / state false arrest, battery, negligence claims	Heaney: removal and alleged force were an unreasonable seizure and support false arrest and tort claims	Black: he reasonably responded to Roberts, maintained order, briefly detained while consulting supervisor; actions objectively reasonable	Affirmed qualified immunity for Fourth Amendment and dismissed false arrest claim; appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of summary judgment on battery and negligence claims (those remain for trial)

Key Cases Cited

Chiu v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 260 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2001) (limited public forum / viewpoint discrimination framework)
Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001) (viewpoint discrimination prohibited)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (role of official motive in certain federal claims)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (objective qualified immunity standard)
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (standard for punitive damages in § 1983 cases)
Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council, 279 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2002) (limited immunity when officer blindly follows orders under dubious authority)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (when a person is "seized" for Fourth Amendment analysis)