Surita v. Hyde

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants-city officials' motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity in plaintiffs' section 1983 action alleging that defendant-mayor's refusal to permit one plaintiff opportunity to speak during city council meeting unless plaintiff apologized to city employee for verbal confrontation that plaintiff had with employee during prior public rally regarding amendment to towing ordinance violated said plaintiff's First Amendment rights where instant blanket refusal constituted impermissible content-based restriction. Fact that mayor allowed others to criticize said ordinance at counsel meeting was immaterial to instant claim, even though mayor believed that refusal was appropriate given his belief that plaintiff had threatened said city employee. Moreover, Dist. Ct. properly denied defendant-Police Chief's assertion of qualified immunity on different plaintiff's claim that imposition of $1,500 fee for plaintiff's use of city park to hold protest rally with respect to towing ordinance constituted violation of her free-speech rights where: (1) instant fee arose out of defendant's estimation of increased police force costs required for monitoring said rally; (2) defendant conceded that costs would be lower if rally were in favor of said ordinance; (3) govt. cannot impose financial burden on speakers based on content of their speech; and (4) defendant imposed instant fee requirement on plaintiff shortly after she announced intent to hold rally, while failing to apply said fee requirement in approximately 500 prior events. (Partial dissent filed.)