Spiegel v. McClintic

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting motion by defendants-plaintiff’s neighbor and Village to dismiss plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendants conspired to violate his First Amendment rights by neighbor filing false police reports complaining that plaintiff improperly photographed and filmed neighbor in and around shared condominium building and by police threatening plaintiff with arrest for disorderly conduct if he persisted in photographing and filming neighbor. Plaintiff could not bring section 1983 action against neighbor, since section 1983 does not permit lawsuits based on private conduct. Moreover, plaintiff failed to state viable claim that neighbor and Village acted in concerted effort to violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights, since plaintiff did not allege that Village’s police agreed to arrest plaintiff if directed to do so by neighbor. Also, plaintiff could not bring Monell claim against Village, since: (1) plaintiff did not allege that Village anticipated or intended that disorderly conduct ordinance would be enforced to chill lawful, expressive conduct like photography; and (2) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege existence of express policy by defendant to enforce disorderly conduct ordinance unconstitutionally.