796 F. Supp. 2d 188
D.D.C.2011Background
- Esta action arises from March 21, 2005, when Weise and Young were excluded from a presidential event in Denver over a bumper sticker on Weise's car.
- Advance Office staff applied national attendance policies, allegedly treating demonstrators as those likely to disrupt the event.
- Jenkins and Beyer are former directors of the White House Office of Presidential Advance; Plaintiffs sue them for policymaking liability under Bivens.
- Amended Complaint alleges the Presidential Advance Manual guides exclusion of demonstrators and is the basis for the ejection.
- Court dismisses the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of plausible policymaking liability and does not reach qualified-immunity merits.
- Colorado district court rulings and a Tenth Circuit decision on related claims inform the court's analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs state a plausible Bivens policymaking-liability claim | Weise alleges policy created ejection based on viewpoint | Policy in Advance Manual does not mandate ejection of non-disruptive individuals | Plaintiffs fail to state plausible policymaking claim under Haynesworth framework |
| Whether the Advance Manual's language supports ejection of demonstrators from ticketed guests | Manual equates dissent with disruption and supports removal | Manual focuses on preventing demonstrators from obtaining tickets; ejection not mandated | Manual does not unambiguously authorize ejection of ticketed guests; no plausible causal link |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (retaliation claims under First Amendment in Bivens actions)
- Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (policymaking liability requires actual policy formulation to cause improper practices)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading standards; plausible grounds required, not mere conclusions)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief, not mere possible)
- Bivens v. Six unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizes damages remedy for constitutional violations by federal officers)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (limits implied remedies against federal officers; discusses Bivens context)