Local Government Law

Magistrate Judge did not err in granting defendant-City's motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that plaintiff's expulsion from City's Senior Center arising out of card game dispute violated plaintiff's free-speech and due process rights. Plaintiff could not maintain instant lawsuit against defendant since: (1) Center's director and Senior Citizen's Bd. that upheld director's expulsion order were not City's final policymakers for purpose of enforcing Center's Code of Conduct; and (2) plaintiff had failed to appeal expulsion order to City's Common Council. Moreover, Ct. rejected plaintiff's argument that Conduct Code was unconstitutionally vague and further noted that: (1) instant expulsion arose out of series of incidents in which plaintiff had engaged in heated confrontations with other patrons and Center's director; and (2) said Conduct Code constituted reasonable time, place or manner restriction.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officials’ motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendants violated plaintiffs’ (individuals representing Christian group) First Amendment rights when defendants ordered plaintiffs to change location of their outreach activities that were being conducted on sidewalks near Soldier Field and Wrigley Field during 2006 Gay Games. Record showed that defendants told plaintiffs to “keep moving” from their sidewalk locations to nearby locations off sidewalks for purpose of avoiding interference with heavy pedestrian traffic at Games, and that said directives were content neutral and were not overly broad where alternative locations allowed plaintiffs to continue their activities. Fact that plaintiffs preferred sidewalks did not render alternative locations inadequate. Moreover, defendants’ actions in precluding plaintiffs from conducting outreach activities at Navy Pier due to their lack of permit did not violate any First Amendment rights where Navy Pier was non-public forum, and where plaintiffs made no attempt to obtain required permit. Remand, though was required with respect to defendants’ denial of plaintiffs’ attempt to conduct outreach activities at Gateway Park due to lack of permit since said Park was public forum, and record failed to contain rationale for instant permit requirement. (Partial dissent filed.)