Local Government Law

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.)

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.