CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned counsel of record for the Appellants, Pro-Life Mississippi, Dana Chisholm, Ester Mann, John Brekeen, Laura Duran, Doug Lane, Ronald Nederhoed, Berkeley Ostrander, and Calvin Zastrow, certifies that the following listed persons as described in the fourth sentence of Fifth Circuit Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the judges of this court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal: 1. Pro-Life Mississippi, a non-profit corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi, and a named plaintiff in this matter. 2. Dana Chisholm, a resident of Mississippi, President of Pro-Life Mississippi, and a named plaintiff in this matter. 3. Ester Mann, a resident of Mississippi, Secretary of the Board of Pro-Life Mississippi, and a named plaintiff in this matter. 4. John Brekeen, a resident of Mississippi and a named plaintiff in this matter. 5. Laura Duran, a resident of Mississippi and a named plaintiff in this matter. 6. Doug Lane, a resident of Mississippi and a named plaintiff in this matter. 7. Ronald Nederhoed, a resident of Mississippi and a named plaintiff in this matter. 8. Berkeley Ostrander, a resident of Mississippi and a named plaintiff in this matter. 9. Calvin Zastrow, a resident of Michigan and a named plaintiff in this matter. i 10. Catherine Short, counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter. 11. Allison K. Aranda, counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter. 12. Steve C. Thornton, counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter. 13. Defendant Lindsay Horton, former Chief of Police for the City of Jackson, Mississippi; 14. Defendant Lee Vance, Chief of Police for the City of Jackson, Mississippi; 15. Defendant Jesse Robinson, an officer for the City of Jackson Mississippi Police Department; 16. Defendant James McGowan, an officer for the City of Jackson Mississippi Police Department; 17. Defendant Mary James, an officer for the City of Jackson Mississippi Police Department; 18. Defendant Marie Hampton, an officer for the City of Jackson Mississippi Police Department; 19. Defendant James Ross, an officer for the City of Jackson Mississippi Police Department; 20. Defendant Willis Thomas, an officer for the City of Jackson Mississippi Police Department; 21. Claire Barker, counsel for Defendants in this matter. 22. Lara E. Gill, former counsel for Defendants in this matter. 23. LaShundra B. Jackson-Winters, counsel for Defendants in this matter. This the 28th day of April, 2015. /s/ Catherine W. Short_________ Catherine W. Short (CA Bar No. 117442) ii STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Plaintiffs-Appellants request oral argument in this matter to assist the court in its decisional process, and particularly to avoid confusion as to factual issues. This case concerns the conduct of defendant police officers directed against several plaintiffs, individually and collectively, over the course of several years. Plaintiffs-Appellants believe that oral argument will help avert any confusion or misunderstandings about the underlying facts. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS........................................................ i STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iv TABLE OF AUTHORITITES ............................................................................... vii JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ..........................................................................1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ......................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................2 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................3 A. The Plaintiffs’ Activity ............................................................................3 B. The Setting...............................................................................................4 C. The “Signs-Up” Rule ...............................................................................6 D. “Obstruction” by Persons and Objects ....................................................8 1. McGowan’s “Deemed Obstruction” Policy ...................................8 2. Third Party Reports of Obstructions on Sidewalk ........................11 E. Arrests and Threats of Arrest ................................................................12 1. 2011 threats of arrest for “obstruction” ........................................12 2. February 28, 2013 arrests for “obstruction” .................................13 3. March 1, 2013 arrest for “obstruction”.........................................14 4. Continuing threats of arrest for “obstruction” throughout 2013 ..15 5. December 4, 2013 arrest for “obstruction”...................................16 6. Continuing threats of arrest for throughout 2014 .........................17 F. Police Inaction Toward Signs and Other Objects on the Sidewalks .....18 G. PLM Plaintiffs’ Efforts to Work with City Officials.............................19 iv SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................19 ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................21 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................21 II. PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM. .......................22 A. If McGowan is not acting according to a municipal policy in enforcing the “signs up” rule, he is violating the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. .....................................................................................................23 B. The “signs up” policy is an unconstitutional restriction on expressive activity. ..................................................................................................25 C. Plaintiffs do not need to demonstrate disparate treatment to prevail on their First Amendment claim. ................................................................28 III. PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM ........................29 A. The City Defendants had no probable cause to arrest the PLM Plaintiffs for Obstruction.......................................................................................30 B. The City Defendants had no probable cause to arrest the PLM Plaintiffs for violation of the sign ordinance or for disturbing the peace. ............34 IV. PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS OF THEIR DUE PROCESS CLAIM ..........36 V. PLAINTIFFS SATISFIED THE OTHER ELEMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ...............................................................41 A. Plaintiffs Established a Substantial Threat of Irreparable Injury. .........41 B. The Balance of Harms Sharply Tips In Plaintiffs’ Favor ......................46 C. The Public Interest Favors Granting the Injunction ..............................49 v VI. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPOSED AN UNDULY STRINGENT BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE PLAINTIFFS............................................50 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................52 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................54 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................55 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITITES FEDERAL CASES Byrne v. Roemer, 847 F.2d 1130 (5th Cir. 1988) .....................................................21 Christian Legal Soc'y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) ..............................49 City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) ...............................................38, 41 Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73 (2nd Cir. 1992) .......................................................43 Crowder v. Sinyard, 884 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1989) ...................................................51 Edwards v. Coeur D’Alene, 262 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................23, 24 Foti v. Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 1998)...................................................38 Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988)....................................................................24 Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ., 391 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 2004).........................................30 Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) ......................................................................38 Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976) ...................................................36 Johnson v. Minneapolis Park & Rec. Bd, 729 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 2013) ................27 McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S.Ct. 2518 (2014) ..............................................19, 28, 29 McLaurin v. Burnley, 279 F.Supp. 220, 225 (N.D. Miss. 1967) .............................35 National People’s Action v. Village of Wilmette, 914 F.2d 1008 (7th Cir. 1990) ....42 Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs Miss., 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012) ..... ............................................................................................................21, 43, 46, 49 Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d 838 (5th Cir. 2009) .................................25 Piazza v. Mayne, 217 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2000).......................................................30 Reynolds v. Middleton, 779 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2015) ........................................26, 27 Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. West Bend Co., 123 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 1997) ...............51 Texans for Free Enter. v. Tex. Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2013) ........41 United States v. Escalante, 239 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2001) .......................................38 Women’s Medical Center v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2011) ..............................21 vii Zepeda v. U.S. Immig. & Nat. Svcs., 753 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1983) .............42, 43, 44 FEDERAL STATUTES 28 U.S.C. §1292 ........................................................................................................1 28 U.S.C. §1331 ........................................................................................................1 28 U.S.C. §1343 ........................................................................................................1 28 U.S.C. §2201 ........................................................................................................1 42 U.S.C. §1983 ............................................................................................1, 22, 51 FEDERAL RULES Fed. R. App. P. 32 ...................................................................................................55 Fed. R. App. P. 4 .......................................................................................................1 Fifth Circuit Rule 28.2.1 ............................................................................................ i STATE STATUTES Mississippi Code § 97-35-5 .....................................................................................45 Mississippi Code § 97-35-15 ...................................................................................35 Mississippi Code § 97-35-25 ........................................................................... passim OTHER AUTHORITIES 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (2d Ed. 1995).................................................................43 Jackson Municipal Code Section 102-31 ..........................................................34, 36 Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil Cases, Fifth Circuit (2014) Instruction 10.1 ..........51 viii JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction. The district court has federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343, 2201, and 2202 because the complaint asserts claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983. R.E. 40-50. ROA.19-50. This Court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1), as Plaintiffs are appealing the district court's order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction entered on October 27, 2014. R.E. 21-39, ROA.1154-1171. Plaintiffs timely filed their notice of appeal in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) within 30 days of entry of the District Court’s order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on October 27, 2014. R.E. 19-20, ROA.388-389. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the District Court erred in finding Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims because they did not show the police treated other speakers differently? 2. Whether the District Court erred in finding that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourth Amendment and due process claims? 1 3. Whether the District Court erred in not granting a preliminary injunction against the individual officers responsible for violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights? 4. Whether the District Court erred in holding that Plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law for their constitutional violations and that this remedy obviated the need for injunctive relief? 5. Whether the District Court imposed on Plaintiffs an erroneously stringent burden of proof for obtaining a preliminary injunction? STATEMENT OF THE CASE Six years ago, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi entered a consent decree against the City of Jackson, its Chief of Police, and various police officers because of the Jackson Police Department’s pervasive policy of violating the free speech rights of Plaintiff Pro-Life Mississippi and individual pro-life advocates. R.E. 51-55, ROA.126-130. After the expiration of the court’s jurisdiction over the decree, Jackson police officers resumed their practice of infringing on the rights of Plaintiff ProLife Mississippi and its members. Because the consent decree forced the city to amend the city ordinances regarding noise and signage previously used to harass the pro-life advocates, police began claiming Pro-Life Mississippi members and others were obstructing the sidewalk or disturbing the peace. Officers started 2 enforcing their own ad hoc “time, place, and manner” restrictions by means of arrests and threats of arrest. On July 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed this action. ROA.19. On August 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. ROA.86. The district court, Hon. Carlton Reeves presiding, scheduled a hearing to begin October 6, 2014. The court heard testimony on October 6, 7, 16, 17, and 27. On October 27, at the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, relying on several erroneous legal arguments propounded by the City. R.E. 21-39. ROA.1154-1171. Plaintiffs timely filed their notice of appeal on November 25, 2014. R.E. 1920, ROA.388-389. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Plaintiffs’ Activity Plaintiffs Pro-Life Mississippi and its individual members, including Plaintiffs Ester Mann, Ron Nederhoed, Cal Zastrow, Laura Duran, Johnny Brekeen, Doug Lane, Berkeley Ostrander, and Dana Chisolm (“PLM Plaintiffs”) engage in free speech activity on the public sidewalks and right-of-ways near Jackson Women's Health Organization (“JWHO”) located at 2903 North State Street, Jackson, Mississippi. As part of this peaceful pro-life advocacy, PLM Plaintiffs hold signs and/or offer literature and counseling to persons approaching 3 the clinic, including offering alternatives to abortion. ROA.757:3-5 (Chisolm) (“I try to talk to the girls. I try to give them a true choice”); ROA.412:10-25 (Mann) (“we try to go out to the places where the babies are dying and the women are suffering and offer them alternatives and help to let them know that there are places where they can get help . . . We speak, we hand out literature, we pray with the people, we read the Bible . . .”). The PLM Plaintiffs locate themselves so as to convey their message to women entering the facility and to passersby, but they do not obstruct or interfere with the free passage of pedestrians or patients on the public roads, right-of-ways, or sidewalks. ROA.471:6-9, 498:6-18 (Mann); ROA.557:11- 558:1 (Ostrander); ROA.113:3 (Zastrow); ROA.110:3 (Nederhoed). Occasionally, Pro-Life Mississippi sponsors larger events in this area for which it obtains permits from the City. ROA.464:17-22, 465:24-466:4 (Mann). B. The Setting JWHO is located on the northwest corner of State Street and Fondren Place in Jackson. The facility has a private parking lot to the west of the building, the entrance to which is on Fondren Place. Fondren Place is a short street with only eight or ten homes on it beyond JWHO on the northwest corner and a yellow house converted to office space on the southwest corner. R.E. 57, ROA.338 (P31); R.E. 58, ROA.340 (P33); ROA.514:19-515:8 (Mann); ROA.1053:14-22 (McGowan). 4 There is very little pedestrian or vehicular traffic on Fondren Place other than clients driving into and leaving the JWHO’s parking lot. ROA.421:15-18 (Mann) (“Although Fondren – it’s not traveled very much by anybody except the abortion clinic patients. The street, there is almost no traffic down there except patients”); ROA.515:9–23 (Mann). JWHO clients parking in the clinic’s lot walk into the clinic along a path separated from the public sidewalk by a tall fence that is covered with tarps and signs posted by clinic personnel. Most clients enter the clinic by this route. ROA.759:11-19 (Chisolm); ROA.489:1-5 (Mann). To the west of the driveway entrance is an unpaved area of public right-ofway. A paved public sidewalk, six feet wide, runs from the west side of the driveway entrance to a gate in the clinic fence opening on a walkway into the clinic. ROA.1044:15-1045:7 (McGowan). The paved public sidewalk ends there in grass and landscaping. Because patients can park in the clinic’s lot and enter the clinic directly from the lot, no patients walk on this sidewalk to the pedestrian gate. ROA.782:19-24, 784:13 – 22 (Chisolm) (“I can say that a long time ago I saw people go through that gate. There isn’t anybody going through that gate now and hasn’t been for a long time”). Also, very few other pedestrians use this sidewalk; it used almost exclusively by clinic escorts and the PLM Plaintiffs and others associated with them. This one section of sidewalk is the only sidewalk on Fondren Place west of 5 State Street, on either side of the street. To use the sidewalk, what few pedestrians there are would have to move out of their line of travel and step up onto the sidewalk where it begins and then step off again where it ends and once again walk in the street. ROA.804:2-12 (Chisolm); ROA.464:4-12 (Mann); R.E. 57, ROA.338 (P31); R.E. 58, ROA.340 (P33); R.E. 59, ROA.341 (P34). Another paved walkway leads directly from Fondren Place to a gate in the fence near the southeast corner of the clinic property. There is no entrance to the clinic building from State Street. Adjacent to State Street and separated from the clinic building by several feet of grass and landscaping is a public sidewalk that is, according to the City Defendants, six feet nine inches wide (ROA.881:12-20 (McGowan)) and according to the PLM Plaintiffs, seven and a half feet wide. ROA.1176:1-10 (Lane). Across State Street from JWHO are restaurants. ROA.952:3-9, 953:9-23 (Glenn). C. The “Signs-Up” Rule Pieter Teeuwissen was the city attorney of Jackson, Mississippi, from July 2009 through September 2013. ROA.1124:2-5. Mr. Teeuwissen testified that it was his understanding that resting a sign on the sidewalk is a violation of both a state statute and city ordinance with respect to obstruction of sidewalks. ROA.1133:1-7 6 (Teeuwissen).1 It is his understanding that “protest signs were to be handheld, off the ground.” ROA.1129:16-1130:2 (Teeuwissen). Defendant James McGowan is a police officer with the City of Jackson Police Department. He is precinct commander of Precinct 4, in which JWHO is located. ROA.865:22-866:13 (McGowan). Other police officers in the precinct act under his supervision. ROA.926:12-21 (McGowan). Commander McGowan, personally and through the police officers under him, enforces a policy by means of threats, arrests, and citations whereby resting a handheld sign on the public sidewalk adjacent to JWHO is automatically obstructing the public sidewalk in violation of city and state law. McGowan and the officers he supervises have enforced the “signs up” policy against the PLM Plaintiffs on many occasions over the past few years. ROA.664:11-665:4 (Zastrow) (“They would either roll their window down and ask that nicely or they would scream it or they would turn their PA system on in their patrol cruiser and give an order, Hey, miss, hey sir, you can’t be having that sign touch the ground. That was repeatedly. I heard that often. Q: Did they say what would happen if you 1 “Q: If a person allows their sign to rest on the sidewalk, would they be violating the law? A: I think they would be violating the state statute with respect to obstruction of sidewalks, yes. Q. Would they be violating a city ordinance? A. I think there is a parallel city ordinance with respect to obstruction of sidewalks. If there is, I would say yes.” 7 let it touch the ground anyway? A: They would say we’re going to take that sign, take you to jail”); ROA.720:12-25 (Zastrow) (“The police would say usually, Your sign touches the ground, you’re going to jail. Statements like that”); ROA.758:22759:8 (Chisolm); ROA.446:14-24 (Mann) (“we had been advised earlier that the signs couldn’t touch the ground when the arrests occurred. So we were trying to keep them from touching the ground so we had them on our feet); ROA.891:7-10, 892:7-10 (McGowan) (“Did you have to ask anyone to take their big signs off the sidewalk? A: There was a couple people had to pick their signs off the ground, but they were never asked to remove the signs”); ROA.921:3-7 (McGowan) (“we did ask Ms. Mann numerous times to pick the sign up and she refused to”). D. “Obstruction” by Persons and Objects 1. McGowan’s “Deemed Obstruction” Policy McGowan and his officers further enforce another policy whereby any object, including a chair, a stepladder, or a person’s body, that is stationary on the public sidewalk adjacent to JWHO is also deemed an obstruction of the sidewalk and a violation of state and city laws. ROA.940:16-21 (McGowan) (“What I told her was anything, including her chair, sitting on the sidewalk is an obstruction of the public sidewalk”); ROA.943:7-12 (McGowan) (“She was obstructing the public sidewalk where she was sitting. Everything that she had attached to her was also obstructing the traffic. Her body, the chair, the signs, everything”); 8 ROA.1066:22-24 (McGowan) (“Q. So by your definition that if someone has to navigate around a person on the sidewalk, that’s an obstruction. A. Any obstruction is an obstruction”). According to Commander McGowan, unlawful obstruction of the sidewalk occurs whether or not the presence of the “obstruction” is permanent or transitory, and whether or not a pedestrian is actually attempting to pass or even in the vicinity of the person or object on the sidewalk. McGowan also sees threatened obstructions where different objects are on the sidewalk at the same time that might come into conjunction with each other, although there is no evidence that they ever have. ROA.882:4-9 (McGowan) (“I don’t know that you could be standing over there at that pole with that sign not have it completely 100 percent blocked”) (referencing R.E. 69, ROA.366 (D19)). Commander McGowan cannot identify what state or city law prohibits obstruction of the public sidewalk and would not identify what code section of state or city law he cited particular plaintiffs under. ROA.929:16 – 931:7, ROA.933:22-936:23 (McGowan). Commander McGowan and his officers have frequently enforced the rule that any stationary object on the sidewalk, including a person, is an obstruction. ROA.539:1-18 (Ostrander) (“[W]e have been told we can stand there [in front of gate] but we had to keep moving. We have been told we can stand there but not when the gate is – only when the gate is closed. We have been told we cannot 9 stand there at various times”); ROA.543:24-544:19 (Ostrander); ROA.554:10–17 (Ostrander) (“[A]t the time you were told to move, were you blocking anybody from entering that gate? A. No. No one was trying to enter”); ROA.782:5-7 (Chisolm) (“I cannot stand in the driveway. I cannot stand in that square that’s in front of the gate that doesn’t open except for the mail or in the gutter”). Commander McGowan provided various examples of his understanding of obstruction of the sidewalk. One example was two photos, taken in opposite directions, of Plaintiff Johnny Brekeen standing on the sidewalk on State Street holding two signs, which Commander McGowan described as “an accurate depiction of the obstruction of the public sidewalk.” R.E. 70, ROA.373 (D1); R.E. 69, ROA.366 (D19); ROA.347 (P51-video) ROA.875:14-876:5, 879:14-880:2 (McGowan). Mr. Brekeen’s signs are taking up approximately half of the sidewalk that is almost seven feet wide. No pedestrians are approaching in either direction.2 McGowan also described an instance of alleged obstruction on a day in October 2014 when PLM had a permit to hold a large demonstration on the sidewalk adjacent to JWHO. McGowan described a person in a wheelchair “having 2 McGowan testified that the sidewalks along State Street and Fondren Place are “very busy” and the “one of the busiest streets in his precinct.” ROA.868:2-14. However, none of the video or photographic evidence introduced by either plaintiffs or defendants supports this characterization of the sidewalks adjacent to JWHO as busy. Brekeen testified that, on the day the photos were taken about which McGowan testified, three people passed him in the five hours he stood on the sidewalk. ROA.593:12-19 (Brekeen). A video taken on the same day provides a momentary view of over one hundred feet along the sidewalk, showing not a single pedestrian. ROA.347 (P51-video). 10 a pretty difficult time because of all the protesters standing in the way.” ROA.895:11-15 (McGowan). McGowan further described the scene: “A lot of people were standing in the way. Some people were attempting to move out of the way but they weren’t able to. There was one of the escorts asking people to move out of the way so they could get through there. She asked at least three times that I remember telling them to move out of the way, move out of the way.” ROA.898:25-900:12 (McGowan). McGowan did not take any action in response to his perception of this obstruction of the public sidewalk. ROA.1059:16-17 (McGowan). The video of the incident McGowan described shows a woman in a wheelchair, with a clinic escort beside her, going down the public sidewalk from the clinic driveway to the gated entrance. ROA.370 (D53-video). The edge of her wheelchair can be seen to the right of the screen as she gets to the sidewalk at 00:44. By 00:52, she is already moving down the sidewalk at a steady pace, first through a crowd of eight or so clinic personnel, many of whom are holding signs, and then through the picketers, with an escort at her side holding a sign, without slowing down or pausing until she reaches the gate at the end of the sidewalk. 2. Third Party Reports of Obstructions on Sidewalk Commander McGowan testified that officers are dispatched to JWHO in response to calls for service. ROA.870:10-18 (McGowan). These calls for service 11 frequently come from business owners in the vicinity of JWHO who are unhappy with the content of the signs they see outside JWHO. ROA.956:4-9 (Glenn); ROA.1051:2-16 (McGowan). One of these owners, Nathan Glenn, has been told that it is violation of the law for picketers to let their signs touch the sidewalk, so he calls the police when he sees that happen. ROA.968:8 – 21:1 (Glenn). Glenn testified that the signs on the State Street sidewalk are held parallel to the sidewalk, facing the businesses across the street; their visibility and contents are the source of the business owner’s objection. ROA.966:7-18; 967:11-14 (Glenn). Glenn has also placed calls for service because they believe that picketers are not allowed to come on “our side” of the street to hold signs. ROA.971:18–972:6 (Glenn). E. Arrests and Threats of Arrest 1. 2011 threats of arrest for “obstruction” Beginning in 2011, specifically including every Thursday and Friday in June 2011, Commander McGowan and the officers he supervises threatened the PLM Plaintiffs who were holding signs on the public sidewalk near JWHO and talking to persons walking nearby. ROA.428:14-18 (Mann). The officers threatened to arrest them on charges of disturbing the peace. ROA.91:5 (Mann); ROA.113:4 (Zastrow). Plaintiff Mann was arrested in 2011 when she refused to move her chair 12 from a location on the public right-of-way where another officer had told her she could put it. ROA.430:14-433:11 (Mann). 2. February 28, 2013 arrests for “obstruction” On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff Johnny Brekeen was arrested by defendant McGowan, while Brekeen was standing holding a sign on the public sidewalk on State Street. ROA.437:2-23 (Mann). Pedestrians, had there been any, had room to pass. ROA.438:3-18 (Mann); R.E. 70, ROA.373 (D1); R.E. 69, ROA.366 (D19); ROA.347 (P51-video). On that day, McGowan also arrested Plaintiff Zastrow, who was sitting on a stepladder placed next to the clinic fence, singing, praying, and reading from the Bible. ROA.440:9-18 (Mann). Neither Zastrow nor his stepladder was obstructing the sidewalk. ROA.439:13-440:4 (Mann). There was plenty of room on the sidewalk for others to pass by, and in fact some people did pass by Zastrow’s ladder. ROA.651:2-4 (Zastrow); R.E. 67, ROA.358 (D50). Lastly, on the same day, McGowan, on the order of Defendant Robinson, arrested Mann who was standing on the sidewalk next to her chair, holding a sign. ROA.441:2-21, 442:9-15 (Mann). Mann was not obstructing the sidewalk. R.E. 61, ROA.343 (P43). McGowan arrested her for obstructing the sidewalk because she refused to hold her sign off the ground and refused to move her chair to the unpaved area further west on the public right-of-way. ROA.920:16-921:7, 928:18- 13 929:25, 934:1-6 (McGowan). Officers took possession of Mann’s and Brekeen’s signs. ROA.1210:22-1211:9 (Villavaso); ROA.920:21-24 (McGowan); ROA.500:4-19 (Mann). After having to appear in court for an arraignment and three different trial settings, the City of Jackson Municipal Court dismissed the obstruction charges (violation of Mississippi Code § 97-35-253) against Mann and Brekeen on November 25, 2013. ROA.102:5 (Brekeen); ROA.92:7-8 (Mann). 3. March 1, 2013 arrest for “obstruction” On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff Calvin Zastrow was arrested by Defendants McGowan, Ross, and Thomas, when he momentarily let his sign touch the public sidewalk. ROA.447:1-7 (Mann); ROA.113:5 (Zastrow); ROA.347 (P51-video); ROA.657:24-658:15 (Zastrow). Zastrow was charged with obstructing a public sidewalk. McGowan, Ross, and Thomas also seized and took possession of Zastrow’s pro-life sign and have not returned it. Zastrow was not obstructing the sidewalk. ROA.447:10-14 (Mann); ROA.113:5 (Zastrow); ROA.347 (P51-video); ROA.658:23-659:8, 659:22-660:2 (Zastrow). The City of Jackson Municipal Court dismissed the charge of violation of Mississippi Code § 97-35-25 on August 19, 2013. ROA.113:5 (Zastrow). 3 Mississippi Code § 97-35-25 prohibits “wilfully obstruct[ing] the free, convenient and normal use of any public sidewalk, street, highway, alley, road, or other passageway by impeding, hindering, stifling, retarding or restraining traffic or passage thereon.” 14 4. Continuing threats of arrest for “obstruction” throughout 2013 In or about March or April 2013, Defendant McGowan told Plaintiffs that they were not permitted to sit in chairs (while holding their pro-life signs and literature) on the paved sidewalk adjacent to JWHO on Fondren Place to the east of the entrance to the clinic parking lot. ROA.448:7-449:9 (Mann). McGowan insisted and continues to insist that Plaintiffs are only allowed to sit on unpaved area west of the driveway entrance, away from the clients. Clinic personnel place chairs immediately adjacent to the driveway at this location, so the PLM Plaintiffs are forced to sit behind these chairs, even further from the driveway and obstructed from the view of the clients. ROA.449:10-450:24 (Mann); ROA.762:3–18 (Chisolm); R.E. 56, ROA.336 (P25); ROA.339 (P32); R.E. 62, ROA.344 (P29); R.E. 63, ROA.349 (P24). On one occasion, Plaintiff Mann’s sign fell off her chair while the chair was placed in this area and its edge was touching the curb. McGowan ordered another officer to arrest Mann, but no arrest was made. ROA.451:8-452:5 (Mann). On April 3, 2013, McGowan threatened to arrest Mann again for obstructing the sidewalk while she was sitting in and standing near her chair placed on the grassy right of way east of the paved sidewalk. ROA.457:7-23 (Mann). On October 2, 2013, defendant JPD Officer Donaldson threatened to arrest Plaintiffs Ester Mann and Ronald Nederhoed while they were sitting in chairs, 15 holding their signs and literature, on the public sidewalk east of the entrance to the clinic parking lot. Officer Donaldson asked them to move the west side of the driveway so he wouldn’t have to arrest them. They were not obstructing the sidewalk, driveway entrance, or public right-of-way. ROA.459:6-15, 460:1-4 (Mann). Because they did not want to be arrested, they moved their chairs to the west side of the driveway, behind where the clinic personnel had their chairs. ROA.460:8-13 (Mann). 5. December 4, 2013 arrest for “obstruction” On December 4, 2013, Plaintiffs Ester Mann and Ronald Nederhoed, along with another woman, were holding signs, letting them rest beside them as they sat in small lawn chairs on the public sidewalk near JWHO. Defendant JPD Officer Marie Hampton approached and ordered that Mann be arrested. Defendant JPD Officer Mary James arrested Mann and Nederhoed for obstructing a public sidewalk. Neither Mann nor Nederhoed were obstructing the sidewalk. Nederhoed and Mann were sitting side-by-side so as to leave plenty room on the sidewalk for other persons, if there were any, to pass by on the sidewalk. ROA.460:14-461:18 (Mann); ROA.94:13 (Mann); R.E. 60, ROA.342 (P41). On February 13, 2014, when Mann and Nederhoed appeared for arraignment as ordered by the issued citation, the City of Jackson Municipal Court cancelled the arraignments because 16 the City could not find any record of the charges. ROA.94:13 (Mann); ROA.110:4 (Nederhoed). 6. Continuing threats of arrest for throughout 2014 On July 1, 2014, Ester Mann was sitting in a chair on the public right-of-way to the west of the driveway entrance to JWHO, in order to avoid being arrested. At the same time, Ron Nederhoed was standing near Mann in the gutter next to the curb of the public right-of-way to the west of the driveway entrance to JWHO. A young woman and her 19-month old son had stopped to speak with Nederhoed as they passed by. Defendant James drove by and told Nederhoed that he could not stand in the gutter. Defendant James threatened to arrest Nederhoed, claiming, “This property belongs to the City and you cannot be on it.” Mann told James that the street and sidewalk were public property and that they had a right to exercise their free speech rights. James told Mann that she did not like her tone and her attitude and threatened to give her “a free ride downtown.” Neither Nederhoed nor Mann was obstructing the sidewalk, driveway entrance, public right-of-way, or street. In fact, Nederhoed was standing next to a trashcan in the gutter and took up less space than the trashcan. R.E. 57, ROA.338 (P31). Because Mann feared that James would arrest her, she stopped speaking. Nederhoed also feared he would be arrested and moved onto the grassy area near Mann. James then drove away. ROA.94:14; ROA.461:19-464:3 (Mann); R.E. 57, ROA.338 (P31). 17 On September 24, 2014, PLM had a permit to use sound amplification during an event being held on the paved sidewalk adjacent to JWHO to the east of the driveway. When the PLM office manager set the small sound machine on the sidewalk, a JPD officer told her that PLM was obstructing the sidewalk and threatened to arrest her if she didn’t move the sound machine over to the dirt area to the west of the driveway. ROA.465:24-468:6 (Mann). F. Police Inaction Toward Signs and Other Objects on the Sidewalks At the same time the City Defendants were enforcing a rule against any “obstructions” on the sidewalk against the PLM Plaintiffs, other speakers have placed sandwich-board style signs on the adjoining sidewalks or place displays in the public right of way along State Street (in the vicinity of JWHO). R.E. 64, ROA.351 (P1); R.E. 65, ROA.352 (P2); R.E. 66, ROA.353 (P3). Although Mann, Zastrow, and Chisholm pointed out these signs and other objects to the police, they have never seen the police take any action to have these items removed. ROA.469:24-470:19 (Mann); ROA.764:18-765:20 (Chisholm); ROA.675:6-21 (Zastrow). Commander McGowan acknowledged seeing similar objects on the sidewalk but concluded, “None of that stuff obstructs the sidewalk.” ROA.885:1522 (McGowan). Nathan Glenn, the restaurant owner who calls in complaints about the picketers’ signs touching the ground, has seen and continues to see signs, art 18 works, mannequins, and other objects on the public sidewalk outside his own business and in the vicinity of JWHO. ROA.972:7-978:13 (Glenn). Also, the police permit pro-choice supporters of JWHO to stand and remain on the public sidewalk immediately in front of the driveway entrance to the abortion facility. R.E. 68, ROA.360 (D9) (six or more escorts standing on sidewalk across driveway entrance); ROA.370 (D53 – video) (six or more clinic supporters standing on sidewalk across driveway entrance). G. PLM Plaintiffs’ Efforts to Work with City Officials Plaintiffs, through their counsel, tried for almost a year before filing this action to get city officials to address this pattern of harassment, threats of arrest, and false arrest by JPD officers. City officials disregarded all such efforts and instead strung Plaintiffs’ counsel along with vague assurances of a meeting at some time in the future. ROA.119-122 (Thornton); ROA.116-118 (Aranda). SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In denying the PLM Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction, the district court made several legal errors. First, it invoked a mistaken interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S.Ct. 2518 (2014) to hold that the PLM Plaintiffs could not prevail on a claim of deprivation of First Amendment rights unless they showed that the police had acted in a discriminatory manner. The same error seemed to underlie the district court’s finding that 19 Plaintiffs were not likely to prevail on their claims under the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. The district court also found the Plaintiffs had not established the existence of an official city policy responsible for the police officers’ unconstitutional actions, but then disregarded the PLM Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief against individual police officers. The court held that PLM Plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction against the constitutional violations proven because they had an adequate remedy at law, i.e., suits for damages. Finally, the court employed a standard for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief that was so extraordinarily high as to be well-nigh unattainable. This Court should reverse the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remand with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction preventing further infringements on Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Specifically, the City Defendants should be enjoined from enforcing any ordinance or statute prohibiting obstruction of the street or sidewalk in the absence of evidence that an individual had deliberately hindered an identifiable vehicle or person from normal use of the street or sidewalk.4 4 Although these issues arise on the public sidewalks and right-of-ways adjacent to an abortion facility, the case does not turn on, or even implicate, the right or ability of patients to enter or leave the facility. The abortion facility is not a party. No one from the abortion facility offered any evidence or testimony. No one has claimed that that the Plaintiffs are preventing or attempting to prevent patients from gaining access to the facility. Instead, the dispute is between Plaintiffs, who wish to exercise their free speech 20 ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court’s grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Each of the elements required to support a preliminary injunction presents a mixed question of fact and law. Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, while legal conclusions are subject to de novo review. A decision grounded in erroneous legal principles is reviewed de novo. Women’s Medical Center v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418-19 (5th Cir. 2011). See also, Byrne v. Roemer, 847 F.2d 1130, 1133 (5th Cir. 1988) (“conclusions of law and the ultimate application of the law to the facts . . . are freely reviewable”). The prerequisites for a preliminary injunction are (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any harm that the injunction might cause to the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279, 288 (5th Cir. 2012). rights in a public forum, and Jackson police officers, who are determined to make it difficult for them to do so. 21 II. PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM. The PLM Plaintiffs presented undisputed evidence that on numerous occasions over the past three years, Commander McGowan and other Jackson police officers have arrested or threatened to arrest them if they did not hold their signs above the ground. Moreover, the evidence showed that this practice, if not enjoined, will continue into the future. In denying the PLM Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, the district court stated, “[T]his matter was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. So, therefore, there must be some violation of a policy of the City of Jackson. The violation of the policy must be the moving force behind the unconstitutional actions that have been alleged by the plaintiffs.” R.E. 24:24 – 25:4, ROA.1157:24–1158:4 (Ruling). The court misstated the standard: to obtain an injunction against the city, the plaintiffs must show an unconstitutional municipal policy, and that the policy, not the violation of the policy, is responsible for the unconstitutional actions. The Court went on to hold that the plaintiffs had failed to show the existence of either a municipal policy or a custom or practice tantamount to a municipal policy. R.E. 25:7-23, ROA.1158:7–23 (Ruling). Here the court erred in not finishing the thought: to obtain injunctive relief against the city, the PLM Plaintiffs must show a policy, custom or practice. It is not necessary for Plaintiffs to demonstrate a municipal policy to have the individual officers responsible for the 22 unconstitutional actions held liable or enjoined from such conduct in the future. While the court later acknowledged that the plaintiffs “may be entitled to specific relief as against the individual officers,” (R.E. 31:2-8, ROA.1164:2-8 (Ruling)), it denied the Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction against all the defendants. A. If McGowan is not acting according to a municipal policy in enforcing the “signs up” rule, he is violating the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. If McGowan and the officers he supervises are not acting pursuant to any municipal policy, then the unconstitutionality of their actions is self-evident. They are imposing a restriction on the manner of expressive activity (namely, that people with signs must hold them in the air and not rest them on the ground), and they are doing so with no basis in law. See Edwards v. Coeur D’Alene, 262 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (law prohibiting picket signs from having wooden supports “necessarily regulates expressive activity protected by the First Amendment”). Even assuming arguendo that the City itself might permissibly prohibit handheld signs touching the ground (which, as discussed below, it may not), the fact that officers are enforcing this restriction on speech without any legal authority to do so is itself a First Amendment violation.5 5 As in the instant case, the police in Edwards initially created the “no handles” restriction on their own authority and enforced it by means of an inapplicable state law. The police arrested Edwards on a charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer when he was asked to surrender the wooden handle of his sign and he refused to do so. A district court enjoined the police from enforcing a policy prohibiting handles on signs 23 Suppose, for example, that some citizens of Jackson decided to picket someone’s house. The United States Supreme Court has held that a city ordinance prohibiting picketing “before or about” a targeted residence is a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction on speech, because it is content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 488 (1988). The fact that such a restriction on speech has been held, by the highest legal authority in the land, to be a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction on protected speech activity does not mean that individual police officers, in the absence of such a law, can arrest people engaged in residential picketing and charge them with, e.g., obstruction of a public sidewalk. It is for the city or other appropriate governmental body to enact time, place, and manner restrictions on expressive activity; it is not up to individual officers to do so. If officers were to arrest the residential picketers, they would be violating the picketers’ First Amendment (and Fourth Amendment) rights. And the officers could properly be enjoined from committing such constitutional violations in the future. “unless said policy is duly enacted by the City's elected representatives, constitutes reasonable time, place and manner restrictions addressing symbolic protest and sign construction, and is applied in an even-handed fashion after being duly proclaimed as the law.” 262 F.3d at 859. The City then enacted an ordinance prohibiting rigid structures in signs, which ordinance was challenged by Edwards and then struck down as being not narrowly tailored and not leaving open ample alternative channels of communication. Id. at 859-860, 867. 24 Similarly, if McGowan and the officers he supervises are enforcing the “signs up” rule restricting the PLM Plaintiffs’ expressive activity with no authority from the city to do so, that is in and of itself a violation of the PLM Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, and Plaintiffs have established the likelihood of success on that claim. B. The “signs up” policy is an unconstitutional restriction on expressive activity. The testimony of Pieter Teeuwissen, city attorney at the time the “signs up” policy began to be enforced against the PLM Plaintiffs, is clear evidence that the officers were acting in accordance with a municipal policy. ROA.1129:16-1130:2, 1133:1-7 (Teeuwissen). Additionally, in 2009, Ms. Mann sent a letter concerning the sign policy to JPD Chief Goodrum and received a response from Mr. Teeuwissen telling her to direct all correspondence on these issues to him. ROA.417:3–20:4, 476:17–477:17 (Mann). Moreover, enforcement of the policy is “so common and well-settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents municipal policy.” Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d 838, 847 (5th Cir. 2009). See Statement of Facts, Section C, supra, pp. 6-8. In light of this evidence of a well-settled custom and the undisputed evidence of Plaintiffs’ counsel bringing this issue before various Jackson public officials (ROA.119-122 (Thornton), ROA.116-118 (Aranda)), the policy clearly is 25 enforced with the “acquiescence of the municipal officer or body with final decision-making over the subject matter of the offending policy.” However, even if the “signs up” policy is not a municipal policy, and even if McGowan had authority to impose the policy, continued enforcement of the policy should be enjoined because it does not meet the standard for a constitutional time, place, or manner restriction on expressive activity in a public forum. The “signs up” policy is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. The city has no legitimate interest in making people hold their signs suspended a few inches above the ground or on their toes. This rule serves neither the city’s interest in keeping sidewalks clear of obstructions nor any other interest. Rather than attempt to justify this policy by pointing to an interest it serves, the City asserted, “There is no constitutional right to rest a sign on the ground.” ROA.1276:14-16. On the contrary, there is a constitutional right to rest a sign on the ground as well as to engage in any manner of peaceful expressive activity in a public forum. A city may choose to regulate or restrict the time, place, or manner of the exercise of First Amendment rights, but when it does so, it has the burden of showing that the restriction is content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests, and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. Reynolds v. Middleton, 779 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2015) (“after 26 the plaintiff makes an initial showing [that speech was restricted by governmental action], the burden then falls on the government to prove the constitutionality of the speech restriction”); Johnson v. Minneapolis Park & Rec. Bd, 729 F.3d 1094, 1099 (8th Cir. 2013) (government agency imposing the restriction must show that the restriction is narrowly tailored). The City Defendants have not attempted to establish any of these prongs, including that the “signs up” policy is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. The City Defendants can be expected to respond that the policy serves the government’s interest in preventing obstruction of the sidewalk. However, mere invocation of a governmental interest is not enough. Johnson, supra, 729 F.3d at 1099 (“it is not enough for the board to recite an interest that is significant in the abstract; there must be a genuine nexus between the regulation and the interest is seeks to serve”); Reynolds, supra, 779 F.3d at 229 (“argument unsupported by evidence will not suffice to carry the government’s burden”). The City Defendants must show that a sign suspended an inch above the sidewalk or resting on someone’s toes poses less of an obstruction than sign resting directly on the sidewalk, and how that difference substantially furthers the City’s asserted interest. Because the “signs up” policy is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, Plaintiffs will succeed on their First Amendment claim. 27 C. Plaintiffs do not need to demonstrate disparate treatment to prevail on their First Amendment claim. Despite the undisputed evidence that the police were restricting the PLM Plaintiffs’ speech by enforcing the “signs up” rule, and despite the absence of any governmental interest which the rule was narrowly tailored to serve, the district court nonetheless held that the PLM Plaintiffs had failed to show that they were likely to prevail on their First Amendment claim. The holding was based on an erroneous legal premise, namely that an as-applied challenge must be predicated on a claim that a law is being enforced in a content-discriminatory manner. ROA.1229:13–1230:10 (Court) (“He must show that he was prevented from speaking while someone else espousing another viewpoint was permitted to do so”); ROA.1236:2–5 (Court) (“if the attack is going to be as applied, you’re going to have to – I believe you’re going to have to show that others have been treated differently”); ROA.1243:17-23 (Court); ROA.1289:16-17 (Court) (“But as applied, though, is equal protection, isn’t it?”). The court believed that unless the PLM Plaintiffs established that the restriction on speech has been enforced in a contentor viewpoint-based manner, the PLM Plaintiffs would not be successful on this claim. The district court’s flawed reasoning was based on a misreading of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen v. Coakley, supra, 134 S.Ct. 2518, striking down a Massachusetts law creating 35-foot speech-restrictive zone 28 around abortion clinics. Reading from a footnote in the McCullen decision specifically addressing the evidentiary requirements for a successful as-applied challenge to a viewpoint discriminatory law (134 S.Ct. at 2534 n.4), the district court erroneously concluded that this was the only type of as-applied challenge a party could bring to a restriction on speech. R.E. 27:24-28:17, ROA.1160:24– 1161:17. The district court misread the decision striking down the Massachusetts law as being premised on the McCullen petitioners’ arguments that the law was content-based because it applied only around abortion clinics and exempted clinic workers. ROA.1291:22–1292:3; 1293:18-1293:7. On the contrary, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments and held that the Massachusetts law was contentneutral (134 S.Ct. at 2534), but went on to unanimously strike down the law as applied because it failed the narrow tailoring and ample alternative prongs. Id. at 2537, 2541. Because the court believed discriminatory treatment to be an essential element of an as-applied challenge, it erroneously found that the PLM Plaintiffs had not met their burden of showing a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim. III. PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM To prevail on their Fourth Amendment claim, the PLM Plaintiffs must sufficiently allege and prove that "(1) . . . [they] w[ere] arrested, and (2) the arrests 29 did not have the requisite probable cause." Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ., 391 F.3d 653, 655-56 (5th Cir. 2004). "The Supreme Court has defined probable cause as the 'facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.'" Piazza v. Mayne, 217 F.3d 239, 245-46 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). A. The City Defendants had no probable cause to arrest the PLM Plaintiffs for Obstruction. The PLM Plaintiffs are substantially likely to prevail on their Fourth Amendment claims because the City Defendants did not have probable cause to arrest them for violating the obstruction statute. Miss. Code § 97-35-25, the obstruction statute, makes it unlawful for “any person or persons to willfully obstruct the free, convenient and normal use of any public sidewalk, street, highway, alley, road, or other passageway by impeding, hindering, stifling, retarding or restraining traffic or passage thereon.” On February 28, 2013, Defendant McGowan arrested Plaintiff Mann for obstruction, while she was standing on the public sidewalk adjacent to Fondren Place, holding a sign that was resting on the ground. ROA.441:2-21, 442:9-15 (Mann). The unrebutted testimony and evidence established that (1) the sidewalk where Mann was arrested was at least 6 feet wide, (2) Mann’s sign took up no 30 more space than her body, and (3) there was plenty of room for passersby to use the sidewalk next to Mann. ROA.1036:11-1037:11 (McGowan); R.E. 58, ROA.340 (P33); ROA. 302:8-10, ROA.303-305 (Mann Declaration); ROA.498:6-19, 513:711, 523:2-19 (Mann). Furthermore, there was no evidence that Mann’s activities kept any person from normal use of the sidewalk. The charge against Mann was dismissed. ROA.92:7 (Mann). On February 28, 2013, McGowan arrested PLM Plaintiff Brekeen for obstruction, while he was standing on the public sidewalk adjacent to State Street, holding two signs that were resting on the ground. ROA.437:2-23 (Mann); ROA.594:10-21 (Brekeen). The unrebutted evidence showed that (1) the sidewalk where Brekeen was arrested was almost seven feet wide6 (ROA.1176:4-10 (Lane)), (2) McGowan walked by Brekeen while Brekeen was holding the signs and McGowan was able to use the sidewalk with no difficulties (ROA.347 (P51video); ROA.1202:7-1203:9; 1204:22-1205:3 (Villavaso)), and (3) there was plenty of room for passersby to use the sidewalk next to Brekeen (ROA.593:12-17, 597:24-598:1 (Brekeen); ROA.438:3-18 (Mann); R.E. 70, ROA.373 (D1); R.E. 69, ROA.366 (D19); ROA.347 (P51-video)). Furthermore, there was no evidence that 6 Plaintiff Doug Lane measured the sidewalk and found it to be seven and a half feet wide. ROA.1176:1–12. Commander McGowan initially testified that the sidewalk was “right about six feet” wide, then revised that to six and a half feet, and then added “a 3inch curb at best.” ROA.880:19–881:20. McGowan’s measurement of the sidewalk thus expanded by 12%. 31 Brekeen’s activity that day kept any person from normal use of the sidewalk. The charge against Brekeen for violation of Miss. Code § 97-35-25 (obstruction) was dismissed. ROA.625:20 – 626:4 (Brekeen). On March 1, 2013, McGowan arrested Zastrow for obstruction, while he was standing on the grassy public right of way adjacent to Fondren Place near the corner of State Street, holding a sign that was resting on the ground. ROA.447:1-7 (Mann); ROA.113:5 (Zastrow); ROA.347 (P51-video); ROA.657:24-658:15 (Zastrow). The unrebutted evidence elicited at the injunction hearing established that (1) the right of way where Zastrow was arrested was several feet wide (ROA.712:15-713:8 (Zastrow); ROA.341 (P34); ROA.347 (P51-video)), (2) Zastrow’s sign was parallel to the curb on Fondren (ROA.659:3-8, ROA.347 (P51video)), and (3) there was plenty of room for passersby to use the right of way next to Zastrow (ROA.113:5 (Zastrow); ROA.347 (P51-video); ROA.658:23-659:8, 659:22-660:2 (Zastrow); ROA.447:10-14 (Mann)). Furthermore, there was no evidence that Zastrow’s activities kept any person from normal use of the sidewalk or right of way. The charge against Zastrow was dismissed. ROA.660:24-661:3 (Zastrow). On December 4, 2013, Defendant Mary James arrested Plaintiffs Mann and Nederhoed for obstruction, while they were holding a sign, occasionally letting it rest on the ground beside them, and holding literature as they sat in small lawn 32 chairs on the public sidewalk near JWHO. R.E. 60, ROA.342 (P41); ROA.94:13 (Mann); ROA.110:4 (Nederhoed). The unrebutted evidence showed that the sidewalk where Mann and Nederhoed were arrested was at least 6 feet wide. ROA.433:6-11; 513:7-11 (Mann); ROA.302:8-10, ROA.303-305 (Mann Declaration); ROA.1036:11-1037:11 (McGowan);7 ROA.340 (P33). There was ample room for passersby to use the sidewalk next to Mann and Nederhoed. ROA.498:6-19 (Mann); ROA.460:14-461:18 (Mann); ROA.94:13 (Mann); R.E., 60, ROA.342 (P41). Furthermore, there was no evidence that either Mann’s or Nederhoed’s activities kept any person from normal use of the sidewalk. On February 13, 2014, when Mann and Nederhoed appeared for arraignment as ordered by the issued citation, the City of Jackson Municipal Court cancelled the arraignments because the City could not find any record of the charges. ROA.94:13 (Mann); ROA.110:4 (Nederhoed). In each of these incidents described above, there is no evidence that any of Plaintiffs’ activities/conduct prevented any person from normal use of the sidewalk. Inherent in the plain meaning of the “obstruction statute” is the requirement that someone or something actually be obstructed from using the sidewalk and/or right of way or is in immediate danger of being obstructed from using the sidewalk and/or right of way. There is no evidence that anyone was 7 McGowan chose to take his measurements of the width of the Fondren Place sidewalk from the posts that protrude out a few inches every six or so feet. 33 obstructed from or in danger of being obstructed from the sidewalk and/or right of way on each of the occasions that Plaintiffs were arrested for obstructing the sidewalk. B. The City Defendants had no probable cause to arrest the PLM Plaintiffs for violation of the sign ordinance or for disturbing the peace. Interestingly, while Commander McGowan’s testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing focused exclusively on claims that the PLM Plaintiffs had obstructed the sidewalk, in his declaration submitted in opposition to the PLM Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, McGowan stated that all arrests of individuals protesting outside JWHO have been for violations of the sign ordinance and disturbing the peace. ROA.249:7. PLM Plaintiffs are substantially likely to prevail on their Fourth Amendment claims because the City Defendants did not have probable cause to arrest them for either offense. No provision in the sign ordinance prohibits plaintiffs from holding signs or resting signs on the public sidewalks or right of ways adjacent to JWHO. On the contrary, Jackson Municipal Code Section 102-31(21) specifically exempts from regulation “Handheld signs, which shall specifically include all picket signs and signs held or used in expressive or protest activity protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which do not otherwise interfere with or obstruct motor vehicle traffic.” (Emphasis added). 34 PLM Plaintiffs do not interfere with or obstruct motor vehicle traffic with their signs, and the City Defendants have presented no evidence of any such obstruction or interference. Similarly, the City Defendants presented no evidence that the PLM Plaintiffs have violated any law against disturbing the peace. Defendant Officer Mary James threatened to arrest Plaintiff Chisholm for being too loud and offered to “give her a ride downtown” and charge her with “disturbing the peace” if Chisholm didn’t quiet down. ROA.763:4-17 (Chisholm). On many occasions Defendants James and McGowan have detained or threatened to arrest Zastrow for preaching or reading the Bible too loudly on the sidewalk. ROA.646:20-647:22, 648:23-649:10; 678:4-18 (Zastrow). On January 28, 2014, Sergeant Albright cited Zastrow for being “loud and boisterous” while reading the Bible on the sidewalk, but that citation was dismissed. ROA.676:13-677:23 (Zastrow). Mississippi Code § 97-35-15 “permits a conviction for speech only if that speech was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace or was of such a nature as ultimately led to a breach of the peace.” McLaurin v. Burnley, 279 F.Supp. 220, 225 (N.D. Miss. 1967).8 The PLM Plaintiffs have caused no disturbance of the 8 Mississippi Code § 97-35-15 (formerly Miss.Code Ann. § 2089.5) provides that “[a]ny person who disturbs the public peace, or the peace of others, by violent, or loud, or insulting, or profane, or indecent, or offensive, or boisterous conduct or language, or by intimidation, or seeking to intimidate any other person or persons, or by conduct either calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, or by conduct which may lead to a breach of 35 peace, and there was no probable cause for any arrests or threats of arrest against them. Thus, the PLM Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their Fourth Amendment claim, because any arrests and/or threatened arrests for disturbing the peace or violating the sign ordinance were not supported by probable cause. IV. PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS OF THEIR DUE PROCESS CLAIM The City Defendants have violated the PLM Plaintiffs’ right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. As a matter of due process, no one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids. The general test of vagueness applies with particular force in review of laws dealing with speech. Stricter standards of permissible statutory vagueness may be applied to a statute having a potentially inhibiting effect on speech; a man may the less be required to act at his peril here, because the free dissemination of ideas may be the loser. Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610, 620 (1976) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Nothing on the face of Mississippi Code § 97-35-25, the obstruction statute, or the Jackson Municipal Ordinance, Chapter 102, the sign ordinance, even hints to a person of common intelligence that it requires picketers to suspend their signs above the ground rather than resting them on the ground. Similarly, nothing in the the peace, or by any other act” is guilty of a crime. 36 obstruction statute suggests that sitting in a chair or on a stepladder on the edge of the sidewalk, or sitting on the curb, leaving ample room for pedestrians to pass, is in and of itself forbidden. Nothing in the law suggests that officers can dictate to speakers where they may stand or not stand, backed up with the threat of arrest. See Statement of Facts, Section D(1), supra, pp. 8-11; ROA.539:1-18 (Ostrander) (“the police would show up and tell us move here, move there, you can’t sit on the curb, don’t be in the street. They had more directions and changes for us”); ROA.451:12-23 (Mann) (“the rules were changing one day after the next”). The City Defendants also threaten to arrest various PLM plaintiffs without even specifying the alleged offense, a due process violation in its purest form. ROA.462:17 – 464:3 (Mann) (Officer James threat to give Mann “a ride downtown” when Mann verbally challenged James for threatening Nederhoed for standing off curb); ROA.762:8-18 (Chisolm) (McGowan threatened arrest if they moved aside chairs set up by clinic escorts that were not in use); ROA.763:4-16 (Chisholm) (Officer James threat to give Chisholm “a ride downtown” for being too loud). The net effect of City Defendants’ arbitrary and capricious enforcement policy is to allow persons to stand, sit, or put up a display on the sidewalk and picket only at the whim of the police officer on the beat. Commander McGowan’s 37 dictum that “any obstruction is an obstruction” and thus a violation of the law “is admittedly violated scores of times daily [] yet only some individuals – those chosen by the police in their unguided discretion – are arrested.” Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 46-67 (1987). This is so even though “[a] peaceful picketer carrying a sign creates no more of an obstacle than a picketer carrying a cross or a pedestrian waiting for a bus.” Foti v. Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 642 (9th Cir. 1998). First Amendment freedoms are meaningless if cities can simply declare that anyone exercising them on a public sidewalk is partially obstructing the sidewalk and thus violating the law. This type of unbridled discretion to be used at the whim of any public official is exactly what the courts have held unconstitutional. Houston v. Hill, supra. A criminal law and/or policy that authorizes and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement is unconstitutional. United States v. Escalante, 239 F.3d 678, 680 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56 (1999) (plurality). Indeed, the threat of arbitrary enforcement is realized in the instant case, where at the same time the City Defendants are citing and arresting PLM Plaintiffs for allegedly obstructing the sidewalk and violating the sign ordinance by allowing their signs to touch the ground, business owners regularly set up stationary commercial displays on the public sidewalk directly across the street from and in 38 the vicinity of JWHO without threat of arrest for obstruction. ROA.972:7-978:13 (Glenn). Even after the PLM Plaintiffs pointed out these signs and other objects on the sidewalk, the police took no action. ROA.469:24-470:19 (Mann); ROA.764:18765:20 (Chisolm); ROA.675:6-21 (Zastrow). This ad hoc approach to enforcement of the obstruction statute is further exemplified by non-enforcement of the law on some occasions. For example, McGowan testified about an undated incident involving a woman on crutches who was allegedly obstructed while trying to get to her office using the sidewalk on State Street. Officer McGowan apparently did nothing but observe and listen to the woman’s complaint. ROA.886:8–24 (McGowan). McGowan also claims that on October 15, 2014, a person in a wheelchair was “obstructed” by picketers, but again McGowan apparently took no action. ROA.370 (D53-video); ROA.1059:24 (McGowan). Rather, he spent his time ordering people who stepped into the gutter to get back on the sidewalk, purportedly for their safety, lest one of the few cars passing on Fondren Place inexplicably swerve out of the traffic lane toward the sidewalk and hit them. ROA.894:19–895:6 (McGowan). The City Defendants presented evidence that Jackson police officers exercise discretion, defined by Police Chief Vance and Deputy Chief Wade in the context of police work as “you’re not mandated to take a particular action” but instead base enforcement decisions on the “totality of the circumstances.” 39 ROA.1082:12-16; R1097:12-13. This understanding of officer “discretion” in enforcing the law omits one critical qualifier, i.e., that the discretion be directed toward legitimate goals of law enforcement. To take Deputy Chief Wade’s example of officers using discretion in deciding whether or not to ticket someone stopped for speeding (ROA.1109:1216), an officer could correctly consider such circumstances as how much in excess of the speed limit the person was traveling; weather and road conditions; how much other traffic was on the road; whether the driver was endangering other vehicles; and whether there were other violations apparent. Conversely, an officer cannot exercise his discretion based on the race, gender, or hair length of the driver; the content of bumper stickers on the vehicle; or whether the driver was a contributor to the mayor’s re-election campaign. The City Defendants presented no evidence as to what factors underlie their exercise of discretion in capriciously imposing a zero tolerance policy for “obstructions” which are not obstructing anyone on the public sidewalk adjacent to JWHO, while at other times observing alleged obstructions of actual pedestrians and taking no action, all the while ignoring unattended objects and obstructions on other sidewalks in the vicinity of JWHO. In the absence of any principles guiding their exercise of discretion, the City Defendants have, through their expansive interpretation of the obstruction statute, “set a net large enough to catch all possible 40 offenders, and leave it to the [individual Jackson police officers] to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained and who should be set at large.” Morales, supra, 527 U.S. at 60. A regulation affecting speech activity “must not be designed so that different officials could attach different meaning to the words in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.” Shamloo v. Miss. State Bd. Of Trustees, 620 F.2d 516, 524 (5th Cir. 1980). Cf. ROA.942:12-20 (McGowan) (“each officer would have a different idea” of what size sign is a violation). The unfettered, arbitrary discretion McGowan and the officers he supervises exercise in enforcing the “deemed obstruction” policy violates the PLM Plaintiffs’ due process rights. PLM Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their Due Process claim. V. PLAINTIFFS SATISFIED THE OTHER ELEMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION A. Plaintiffs Established a Substantial Threat of Irreparable Injury. PLM Plaintiffs demonstrated that they have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. It is well established that a denial of First Amendment freedoms, even for a short period of time, constitutes irreparable injury justifying the grant of a preliminary injunction. Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs Miss., supra, 697 F.3d at 295; Texans for Free Enter. v. Tex. Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535, 539 (5th Cir. 2013). As the PLM Plaintiffs established above, Commander McGowan’s ad hoc rule that all signs must be held in the air is unconstitutional and has a chilling 41 effect on PLM Plaintiffs’ free speech activities. For example, Ms. Chisholm testified that she no longer carries a sign because she is afraid it will slip out of her hand, touch the ground, and she will be arrested and have the sign confiscated. ROA.757:14-15, 759:3-8, 786:14-17 (Chisholm). McGowan continues to threaten to arrest all of the PLM Plaintiffs if they allow their signs to touch the ground. See Statement of Facts, Section C, supra, pp. 6-8. The City Defendants maintain that the PLM Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights are not being violated and that they will not suffer irreparable harm because they are free to hold signs, so long as they keep them in the air. ROA.1282:11-17. The City also argued that PLM Plaintiffs are free to engage in other free speech activity and thus they have not been completely denied their First Amendment freedoms. ROA.1282:3-10. Inhibiting one form of speech is irreparable and is not mitigated even if that speech could be done elsewhere or another form of speech is permissible. National People’s Action v. Village of Wilmette, 914 F.2d 1008, 1013 (7th Cir. 1990) (blocking the plaintiffs' speech in one city is irreparable even if that speech would be allowed somewhere else). Similarly, a violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights coupled with evidence that the violations are reasonably likely to continue constitutes irreparable harm that warrants the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Zepeda v. U.S. Immig. & Nat. Svcs., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 77 42 (2nd Cir. 1992) (rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are fundamental, thus any deprivation will result in irreparable harm). Furthermore, “when an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Opulent Life Church, supra, 697 F.3d at 295 (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (2d Ed. 1995)). As the PLM Plaintiffs demonstrated above, the arrest of Mann and Brekeen on February 28, 2013, and the arrest of Zastrow on March 1, 2013, for allowing their signs to touch the ground and allegedly obstructing the sidewalk were all made without probable cause and violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures. See Statement of Facts, Sections E(2) and (3), supra, pp. 13-15. Furthermore, ongoing violations of constitutional rights are more likely to be irreparable. Zepeda, supra, 753 F.2d at 727. The City Defendants stand by their “signs up” rule and continue to threaten arrest if PLM Plaintiffs let their signs touch the ground. See Statement of Facts, Section C, supra, pp. 6-8; ROA.1276:14-15. In light of City Defendants’ legally untenable application of the obstruction statute and sign ordinance, the PLM Plaintiffs face a very real threat of arrest at the whim of the City Defendants who on any given day may claim that PLM Plaintiffs’ activity or location on the sidewalk that day constitutes 43 an obstruction. PLM Plaintiffs are in the position where they must adhere to the arbitrary and unconstitutional orders issued by JPD and sacrifice their free speech rights, or give up their liberty by risking arrest. Both harms are equally irreparable, and PLM Plaintiffs will continue to suffer both unless injunctive relief is granted. The district court’s conclusion that PLM plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law and that money damages are sufficient to compensate for any Fourth Amendment violation is factually and legally erroneous. R.E. 32:13-15, ROA.1165:13-15 (Ruling) (“The court believes there is an adequate remedy at law for false arrest. You sue the individual who falsely arrested you”). The harm caused by an unconstitutional seizure cannot be remedied by monetary damages. Zepeda, supra, 753 F.2d at 727. This is particularly true in the present case. PLM plaintiffs are routinely arrested or threatened with arrest on claims that their signs resting on the ground constitute an obstruction in violation of state and city law. See Statement of Facts, Section C, supra, pp. 6-8. The charges are often later dismissed in justice court. ROA.92:7-8, 94:13 (Mann), 110:4 (Nederhoed), 113:5 (Zastrow). While the district court saw these dismissals as evidence that “the process is working” (ROA.1267:9-13), the City Defendants continue to threaten to arrest PLM Plaintiffs for obstruction if they allow their signs to touch the ground. No amount of money damages could compensate PLM Plaintiffs for the loss of liberty suffered during each meritless arrest. Moreover, to require PLM Plaintiffs 44 to file suit and be compensated with some nominal amount for their loss of liberty each and every time the City erroneously arrests them is irrational and a waste of judicial resources. The harm caused by this sort of constitutional violation cannot be remedied by monetary damages and thus necessitates injunctive relief. Moreover, as Plaintiffs have discovered to their detriment, the state court’s procedure in these matters is so prolonged as to approach interminable. For example, plaintiff Mann was unlawfully arrested over four years ago for purportedly interfering with a business. ROA.302:4-6. One of the key elements of the crime is that the person actually be on the business’ property at the time of the offense. Miss. Code § 97-35-5 (“Whoever, while in or on the premises of another …”). No evidence was presented that Mann was ever on the business’s property and in fact she was never on the business’s property. Rather, Mann engaged in peaceful free speech activity on the public sidewalk and did not interfere with the business at all. ROA.91; ROA.92; ROA.302 (Mann Declarations). It took the City over a year to bring her to trial before a municipal judge, who is not required to be licensed to practice law. Id. It took another year for Judge Clay issued his ruling on the case finding Ms. Mann guilty. Id. Since Mann filed her notice of appeal in November 2013, she has not received any communication from the court regarding the appeal. There is currently no pending court date for Mann to appear on the appeal. Id. The Jackson criminal appeals process does not provide an adequate 45 remedy to challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to plaintiffs’ conduct. The post-deprivation remedies available under Mississippi state law are neither adequate nor expedient in this matter. Moreover, money damages alone are an inadequate remedy for the irreparable injury of the loss of First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs face a real danger of unlawful arrest every day that they choose to engage in constitutionally protected free speech on the public sidewalks and right of ways adjacent to JWHO because of the City Defendants’ misapplication of state and local laws. B. The Balance of Harms Sharply Tips In Plaintiffs’ Favor As set forth above, the PLM Plaintiffs have been harmed and will continue to be harmed if the City Defendants are not enjoined. These harms include the loss of First Amendment rights, arrests, threats of arrest or citation, and the chilling effect of having to deal with frivolous citations for engaging in First Amendment activity. Because Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm, the City Defendants “would need to present powerful evidence of harm to its interests to prevent [Plaintiffs] from meeting” the balance of harms prong. Opulent Life, supra, 697 F.3d at 297. The City Defendants will not be harmed if a preliminary injunction issues, for several reasons. First, as discussed supra, Section II(B), the “signs up” rule 46 does not further any legitimate governmental interest, and so enjoining its enforcement will not harm the City Defendants. Second, as shown above, the “deemed obstruction” rule enforced on the sidewalk adjacent to JWHO does not address any real problem with pedestrian or vehicular traffic in that area. Third, the “deemed obstruction” rule is enforced only in response to calls for service. i.e., complaints.9 The City Defendants assert that the police do not take action against signs or other objects on sidewalks unless someone makes a call for service to the police. ROA.1069:5-10 (McGowan); ROA.1313:14-16 (City) (“What evidence you do have has been presented by the City and show that the City and its officers only go out to the -- to respond to calls for service”). Many of the calls for service come from business owners in the area, such as Nathan Glenn, the restaurant owner who calls in complaints from across State Street, and Alan Lange, who does the same from the building across Fondren Place from JWHO. ROA.1053:17-22; ROA.1050:20 – 1052:2 (McGowan). The PLM Plaintiffs have pointed out signs and other objects on the sidewalk to the police, without any action being taken. ROA.469.24-470:19 (Mann); ROA.764:18-765:20 (Chisholm); ROA.95:15 (Mann); ROA.675:6-21 (Zastrow). 9 However, the City Defendants’ own record of calls for service to 2903 State Street/JWHO does not reflect a single call for service to 2903 State Street for obstruction of the sidewalk. ROA.363-364 (D51) 47 Sandwich board signs, benches, statues, and other objects are regularly placed on the public sidewalk directly across State Street from and in the vicinity of JWHO. ROA.972:7-978:13 (Glenn); R.E. 64, ROA.351 (P1); R.E. 65, ROA.352 (P2), R.E. 66, ROA.353 (P3). Commander McGowan testified that he is aware that they are there, but “None of that stuff obstructs the sidewalk.” ROA.885:15– 22.10 But compare R.E. 66, ROA.353 (P3) (photograph of signs, benches, and other objects on sidewalk on east side of State Street) with R.E. 70, ROA.373 (D1) (photograph of plaintiff Brekeen on sidewalk on west side of State Street) and R.E. 60, ROA.342 (P41) (photograph of plaintiffs Mann and Zastrow being arrested for obstructing sidewalk on Fondren Place). On any given day, there are undoubtedly dozens or even hundreds of objects left for some period of time on a public sidewalk that the City Defendants take no action to remove. On any given day, hundreds of people pause on the public sidewalk to chat with a friend, look at a map, text a message, or wait for a ride, and the City Defendants take no action to make them keep moving lest they “obstruct” 10 Commander McGowan testified that the sidewalk on the east side of State Street is about twelve feet wide, and that this was “double plus” the width of the sidewalk on the west side of State Street, adjacent to JWHO. ROA.903:3 – 904:5. McGowan did not specify exactly where or how he measured theses widths, but Exhibit P-3 (R.E. 66, ROA.353) shows that the sidewalk on the east side of State Street is considerably narrower than twelve feet, not much wider than the sidewalk on the west side of State Street. See R.E. 70, ROA.373 (D1). 48 the sidewalk. And no one is harmed by this lack of zealousness in enforcing the “deemed obstruction” policy. As the City Defendants take action only about alleged obstructions on the sidewalk if there is a complaint from someone, even a person completely unaffected by the alleged obstruction, there is clearly no pressing necessity for them to enforce the “deemed obstruction” rule against the PLM Plaintiffs. The City Defendants’ interests should lie in preventing actual harms, not in responding to any complaint, however frivolous. The City Defendants’ interests are sufficiently protected if the police enforce the obstruction laws only where there is evidence a person has willfully hindered or impeded the passage of another person on the sidewalk. See Miss. Code § 9735-25. C. The Public Interest Favors Granting the Injunction Courts considering requests for preliminary injunctions have consistently recognized that the public interest is best served by upholding First Amendment principles. "[I]njunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest." Opulent Life, supra, 697 F.3d at 298, quoting Christian Legal Soc'y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2006). The City Defendants’ enforcement of inapplicable criminal statutes and ordinances to interfere with the PLM Plaintiffs’ speech infringes not only the rights 49 of Plaintiffs, but also the interests and rights of others who may wish to engage in expressive activity on public streets and public ways but whose activity may generate “calls for service” to the police. Thus, enjoining the enforcement of the “signs up” rule and the “deemed obstruction” rule will serve the public interest. The City Defendants will not be harmed by the issuance of the preliminary injunction. The City Defendants will maintain their full complement of law enforcement tools for dealing with any unlawful, disruptive behavior on the part of the PLM Plaintiffs or others, including conduct that creates an actual, rather than a theoretical, obstruction of pedestrian traffic on public sidewalks. All the City Defendants will be enjoined from doing is interfering with lawful activity by misapplying these laws. VI. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPOSED AN UNDULY STRINGENT BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE PLAINTIFFS In the lower court, the City Defendants argued that the PLM Plaintiffs were required to establish all elements for preliminary injunctive relief by clear and convincing evidence. ROA.806:19-25 (City) (“the burden of persuasion is by clear and convincing evidence, not preponderance of the evidence”); 807:2-4, 810:10-12 (City) (“Injunctive relief is only granted under extraordinary circumstances under a clear and convincing standard of evidence”). The court adopted the City’s argument and erroneously held plaintiffs to a higher standard of proof than was 50 required. R.E. 22:16-22, ROA.1155:16–22 (Ruling); R.E. 38:13-17, ROA. 1171:13-17 (Ruling). A plaintiff’s burden at a preliminary injunction hearing is not higher than the burden it must meet at trial, which is preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Crowder v. Sinyard, 884 F.2d 804, 824 (5th Cir. 1989) (plaintiff must prove elements of 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim for Fourth Amendment violation by preponderance of the evidence). See also Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil Cases, Fifth Circuit (2014) Instruction 10.1 et seq. (burden on Fourth Amendment and other civil rights claims is by preponderance of the evidence). Rather, the movant must present only sufficient evidence to show a likelihood of prevailing at trial by the standard of preponderance of the evidence, a lower standard than that required to prevail after a full trial on the merits. Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. West Bend Co., 123 F.3d 246, 254, n.13 (5th Cir. 1997) (lack of empirical data due to urgency “is precisely the sort of contingency that the lower burden of proof governing preliminary injunctions is intended to accommodate”). The district court also erred in not acknowledging that the burden of proof shifted to the City Defendants on the First Amendment claim. ROA.1290:7-8 (Court) (“the City didn’t have the burden to do a thing”). As noted in Section II.B, supra, the burden of proof shifted to the City Defendants to show that the speech 51 restrictions they enforced met the three-part test for time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. The PLM plaintiffs presented more than sufficient evidence to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their First Amendment claim, their Fourth Amendment claim, and their Due Process claim. PLM plaintiffs also demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, that the balance of harms weighs heavily in favor of the PLM Plaintiffs, and that the public interest would best be served by issuing the injunction. Thus, the district court erred in not granting PLM Plaintiffs their requested relief. CONCLUSION The City Defendants are on a mission and, as evidenced by the 2008 consent decree, have been for several years. Their mission is to discourage First Amendment activity that annoys local business owners; their current strategy is to make speakers unwilling participants in a game of “Mother, May I?” with the police. Losers are sent, not back to the starting line, but to criminal court on frivolous charges of obstructing a sidewalk or street. The PLM Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to reverse the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remand with instructions that the district court enter a preliminary injunction against the City Defendants directing that the police enforce the obstruction laws against the PLM Plaintiffs only where there is 52 evidence that a plaintiff has willfully hindered or impeded the passage of an identifiable person or vehicle. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Catherine W. Short_________ Catherine W. Short (CA Bar No. 117442) LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION PO BOX 1313 Ojai, CA 93024 Tel: 707-337-6880 Fax: 805-640-1940 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Appellants 53 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I, Catherine Short, have this date caused the foregoing brief to be filed via the Court’s ECF System and thereby served on the following persons: CLAIRE BARKER (MSB#101312) Office of the City Attorney 455 East Capitol Street PO Box 2779 Jackson, Mississippi 601/960-1799 (office) 601/960-1756 (facsimile) [email protected] COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES This the 28th day of April, 2015. /s/ Catherine W. Short_________ Catherine W. Short (CA Bar No. 117442) LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION PO BOX 1313 Ojai, CA 93024 Tel: 707-337-6880 Fax: 805-640-1940 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Appellants 54 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 12,464 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word for iMac 2011 version 14.4.9 in Times New Roman 14 point font. /s/ Catherine W. Short_________ Catherine W. Short (CA Bar No. 117442) LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION PO BOX 1313 Ojai, CA 93024 Tel: 707-337-6880 Fax: 805-640-1940 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Appellants 55
© Copyright 2024