Lavite v. Dunstan

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-County officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by banning him from entering County’s Administration Building, where plaintiff’s employer maintained office, after plaintiff had denied County Administrator’s request to divert some funds in plaintiff’s employer’s budget to help pay salary of probation officer whose job was in jeopardy. Record showed that: (1) instant ban was imposed shortly after plaintiff had PTSD episode that resulted in plaintiff threatening police officer and kicking out window of squad car; and (2) plaintiff’s workplace was not public forum, but rather was mere office building. Moreover, instant ban was viewpoint neutral and reasonably motivated by legitimate safety concerns. Too, plaintiff failed to establish causation element in any retaliation claim, where alleged protected conduct in form of plaintiff’s rejection of county’s money request took place two years prior to imposition of instant ban. Alternatively, plaintiff could not establish any due process violation arising out of defendants’ alleged failure to abide by rules contained in County’s personnel policy handbook prior to imposing instant ban, since plaintiff failed to identify any property interest that attached to said rules.