CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg1e o1f o1f616

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE,

)

MICHAEL BOWERSOX, and THREE

)

RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE

)

(“3RCC”),

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF

)

POLICE; OFFICER SELLERS (Badge No. )

3602); OFFICER KURVACH (Badge No. )

3480); and OFFICER JOHN DOE 2 (Badge )

No. 3564),

)

Defendants. _____________________________________

Civil Action No. ___________ VERIFIED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION 1. This civil-rights lawsuit against the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police and several
individually named officers arises from the defendants’ systematic attempts to harass and discourage lawful First Amendment activities by Plaintiffs Seeds of Peace Collective and Three Rivers Climate Convergence (“3RCC”). The two organizational plaintiffs are groups of demonstrators against the G-20 Summit being held in Pittsburgh on September 24-25, 2009. Seeds of Peace is one of several groups with buses that will be serving food for 3RCC’s “climate camp” and “sustainability fair,” political demonstrations that will be held in Point State and Schenley Parks in Pittsburgh. Indeed, this Court issued a preliminary injunction in CODEPINK v. U.S. Secret Service, 09-cv-1235 (W.D.Pa., Lancaster, J.), on September 17, 2009, ordering the City of Pittsburgh to allow 3RCC to hold the demonstration at Point State Park. Since that court-issued injunction, City of

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg2e o2f o1f616
Pittsburgh police have engaged in a pattern of illegal searches, vehicle seizures, raids and detentions of Seeds of Peace members. 2. On Friday, September 18, the police illegally searched and seized a bus, known as the Seeds of Peace bus, in retaliation for the group’s association with and intention to provide food and medical supplies to G-20 demonstrators. Seeds of Peace reclaimed its bus late Friday night, but only after being forced to pay a fee. Late on Sunday night, September 20, Seeds of Peace was preparing food to begin serving 3RCC’s demonstrations on Monday, when more than thirty Pittsburgh police officers with semi-automatic weapons raided the private property in Lawrenceville where the Seeds of Peace and another foodpreparation bus were parked. The police insisted on searching the property and the buses, but having no search warrant Plaintiffs refused consent to search the buses. Subsequently, Pittsburgh police detained for nearly two hours four Seeds of Peace members on loitering charges while they were walking to their residence. All four members were subsequently released without being charged or cited. This action for injunctive relief and damages results from the foregoing incidents.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. As plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court has jurisdiction over this civil action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper. 4. Venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)
2

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg3e o3f o1f616
because the events that give rise to this action occurred within the Western District of Pennsylvania and the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction here.
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Seeds of Peace Collective is a non-profit cooperative organization dedicated to
providing support to groups and individuals striving for social and environmental justice. 6. Plaintiff Michael Bowersox is co-owner of the Seeds of Peace bus and a member of the
Seeds of Peace Collective. Plaintiff Bowersox resides in Moscow, Idaho. 7. Plaintiff 3RCC is a partnership of Pittsburgh-area groups and individuals, working with
like-minded national and international groups, who are concerned about climate change, environmental justice and true sustainability. 8. Defendant City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police is an agency of the City of Pittsburgh, which is a municipal subdivision organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. 9. Defendant Officer Sellers (first name unknown at this time) is employed by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. He wears badge number 3602. He is sued in his individual capacity. 10. Defendant Officer Kurvach (first name unknown at this time) is employed by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. He wears badge number 3480. He is sued in his individual capacity. 11. Defendant Officer John Doe 2 (a pseudonym because his name is not known at this time) is employed by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. He wears badge number 3564. He is sued in his individual capacity. 12. Defendant Officers John and Jane Doe 3-50 are employed by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. These Doe officers were involved in or directed the raid on the Lawrenceville
3

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg4e o4f o1f616
facility where the bus was parked and in the detention of the four Seeds of Peace members. 13. All individually named defendants (including the Doe’s) were, at all relevant times hereinafter mentioned, acting under color of state law.
FACTS Demonstrators Converge on Pittsburgh to Protest the G-20 Summit 14. The Group of Twenty (“G-20”) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors was
established in 1999 to bring together important industrialized and developing nations to discuss key issues in the global economy. It includes 19 of the world’s largest national economies, plus the European Union (“EU”). 15. The next G-20 Summit is scheduled to be held at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on September 24-25, 2009. 16. Government and financial leaders from many of the world’s most influential and powerful nations, including U.S. President Barack Obama, will attend the G-20 Summit. 17. The G-20 Summit has attracted and is attracting thousands of demonstrators. The demonstrators’ criticisms include, inter alia, that the G-20’s decisions result in a concentration and privatization of economic wealth and consequent denial of financial resources for basic human needs like food, clean water, healthcare, etc.; promote violence by waging war on, and occupying, other nations, resulting in countless casualties, including innocents; and are responsible for the failure to adopt “green” policies that protect our planet’s fragile natural resources and to address meaningfully the problem of global-climate change.
4

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg5e o5f o1f616
18. It is expected that thousands of demonstrators will use Pittsburgh’s traditional public forums, e.g., streets and parks, to express their views in opposition to the G-20 Summit.
The Seeds of Peace Bus 19. Since 1986, Seeds of Peace Collective has provided food, water, and planning to
thousands of activists working on the front lines of social change. The collective has supported communities working to end homelessness and nuclear proliferation, uphold Native American sovereignty, support migrant workers’ rights, stop environmental destruction, resist genetically engineered foods, and end corporate domination of our world. Since 1999, Seeds of Peace has focused a lot of effort on supporting the movement for “Fair Trade.” 20. Seeds of Peace, in collaboration with other local and national groups, will be providing food support for demonstrators mobilizing in Pittsburgh during the week of September 20, to protest not just the G-20 Summit, but the International Coal Conference, which will be meeting in Pittsburgh on September 21-23. Seeds of Peace will also be helping to provide the medical infrastructure for the week. The group’s primary, but not exclusive, beneficiary will be the 3RCC. This last fact is prominently advertised on the collective’s website: http://www.seedsofpeacecollective.org/. 21. Seeds of Peace owns and operates a bio-diesel bus that runs on vegetable oil and solar power. The bus, a retrofitted 1986 school bus, has traveled to many places across the country to provide food and medical supplies to demonstrators. 22. Seeds of Peace members drove the bus from Montana and arrive in Pittsburgh on Sunday, September 13, 2009.
5

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg6e o6f o1f616
23. On Monday, September 14, 2009, Seeds of Peace members parked the bus in front of 3713 Melwood Avenue in Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood. The bus was parked against traffic but was not obstructing traffic, driveways, or fire hydrants. The owner of 3713 Melwood Avenue consented to the collective parking their bus in front of the residence.
24. The bus remained parked at the Melwood Avenue location from Monday, September 14, 2009, until Friday, September 18, 2009, the date of the events described herein.
The City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Closely Monitors Seeds of Peace and Others Providing Logistical Support to Demonstrators While the City Opposes Attempts to Accommodate Out-of-town Demonstrators. 25. The Pittsburgh Police Bureau’s surveillance of G-20 demonstrators has been widely
publicized by the local news media. 26. Beginning on Tuesday, September 15, 2009, Seeds of Peace members began observing
various unmarked cars with people inside parked near the bus and driving by the bus repeatedly during the course of each day. 27. The City has attempted to discourage demonstrators from coming to Pittsburgh by making it difficult for them to stay in the City. 28. For instance, claiming that it never allowed overnight camping in Pittsburgh Parks, the City refused to issue permits for overnight camping. 29. In truth, however, not only does a Pittsburgh ordinance authorize overnight camping with the approval of the City’s Parks Department Director, but that authority has been exercised to allow camping by a group highlighting the displacement of Ugandan children. Permission was given in 2007 and again for an overnight tent city at Schenley
6

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg7e o7f o1f616
Park in April of 2009. Additionally, upon information and belief, the City annually allows participants in the Pittsburgh Vintage Grand Prix to camp overnight in Schenley Park and has periodically allowed large gatherings of people to stay overnight in Schenley Park since at least the mid-1980s. 30. The City’s opposition to the G-20 protesters being able to use Schenley Park to accommodate out-of-town demonstrators was so fierce that in the course of defending against a lawsuit filed on September 11, 2009 (See CODEPINK, et al., v. United States Secret Service, et al., 2:09-cv-1235 (W.D. Pa.)), the City misrepresented to the Court that it had refused permission for the April 2009 Ugandan-displacement tent city at Schenley Park. In fact, evidence acquired by plaintiffs’ attorneys after the preliminary-injunction hearing showed that the demonstration took place and that the City had issued a permit just a few days before the event. 31. On September 17, the district court denied a requested injunction by Plaintiff 3RCC in the CODEPINK lawsuit for a permit to camp in Schenley Park. The Court did order the City to allow CODEPINK to use Point State Park on Monday and Tuesday, September 21-22. The City subsequently indicated that it would issue permits for 3RCC and CODEPINK to use Point State Park on Monday and Tuesday. 32. Accepting the CODEPINK Court’s decision, 3RCC adjusted its plans to simply use Schenley Park during the daytime for a “sustainability fair,” an event for which the City of Pittsburgh issued a permit. 33. The Seeds of Peace bus and several others that had arrived in Pittsburgh to help feed demonstrators was and is a crucial component of both modeling how to provide healthy
7

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg8e o8f o1f616
food to people and actually dispensing the food. Defendants Harass Seeds of Peace Members and Illegally Search and Seize the Bus. 34. On Friday, September 18, 2009, shortly before noon, Seeds of Peace members returned to
the bus, which had been parked in the exact same spot on Melwood Avenue since Monday. Group members had locked the bus door and left it unattended for about an hour. 35. Upon returning to the bus at about 1:00 p.m., two Seed of Peace members saw a Pittsburgh police officer (later identified as Officer Kurvach) on the bus, while Defendant Sellers stood in the vehicle’s doorway. 36. The Seeds of Peace members asked the police what they were doing on the bus and informed the officers that they did not consent to any entry or search of the bus. 37. At no time did the defendant police officers indicate that they had a search warrant to board the bus, nor did they ever show the Seeds of Peace members a search warrant. 38. The defendant police officers then belligerently began demanding that the Seeds of Peace members provide proof of the vehicle’s ownership. 39. Although the Seeds of Peace members, as designated operators of the bus, had a key to the bus and could have driven the bus to a different location, Defendant Sellers did not speak with any of the members and instead called for a tow truck. 40. Informed that one of the people named on the vehicle registration, Plaintiff Michael Bowersox, was en route to the area and his arrival was imminent, Defendant Sellers said, “I don’t care! I don’t want to hear it.” 41. The defendant police officers began loudly ordering Seeds of Peace members to provide
8

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg9e o9f o1f616
identification and demanded that a physical ID card be produced to verify identification. The defendant officers also asked members to provide their social security numbers. 42. A tow truck arrived shortly thereafter and towed the bus to a City of Pittsburgh impound lot. 43. No one had reported the vehicle as being stolen and the defendants never informed Seeds of Peace members that they believed the bus was stolen. 44. The bus owner, Plaintiff Michael Bowersox, arrived on the scene a mere minutes after the bus was towed away. 45. At no time during the course of this incident did the defendant police officers tell Seeds of Peace members that the bus had been illegally parked. The defendant officers claimed at one point that the bus was towed because the bus was clearly over tonnage for the neighborhood. 46. Even if the bus had been illegally parked, which the police at the time never claimed, the proper procedure would have been to issue the operator a citation for illegal parking and instruct him to move the vehicle, not to impound it. According to the Pittsburgh City Code, a vehicle parked in violation of the Commonwealth Vehicle Code can only be removed or towed “upon authorization of the Superintendent of Police” and then only if neither the owner or operator is present to move the vehicle. See Sections 523.02(a), 525.05. 47. Plaintiff Bowersox was able to regain the Seeds of Peace bus, but not until he paid $220.00 and was forced to retrieve the vehicle from the City’s tow pound at approximately 9:30 p.m. The next morning, Bowersox noticed that during the time the
9

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg1e01o0f o1f616
City had control of the Seeds of Peace bus, the large passenger side mirrors had been shattered. 48. Two days after retrieving the bus, and while talking with counsel, Seeds of Peace members looked through the bus paperwork for registration papers and discovered a parking/traffic citation that was never mentioned to the members and not signed by an individual acknowledging receipt of the citation. The citation claims that the bus was parked in violation of P.S. 75 Sec. 3354(a) – Additional Parking Regulations – Two-way Highways. No dollar or fine amount is listed on the citation. 49. Besides the out-of-pocket damages and inconvenience caused by defendants’ unconstitutional actions, Mr. Bowersox has suffered humiliation, embarrassment and emotional distress. The Seizure of the Bus Was a Deliberate Decision by Bureau of Police Policymakers 50. The individual defendant police officers’ actions on September 18 were not a random, unauthorized seizure of the bus. 51. Under the Pittsburgh City Code, a vehicle parked in violation of the Commonwealth Vehicle Code can only be removed or towed “upon authorization of the Superintendent of Police.” See Section 523.02(a), 52. As noted above, Pittsburgh police had the Seeds of Peace bus under surveillance since at least the morning of Tuesday, September 15, 2009. 53. Moreover, on the same evening that the Seeds of Peace bus was seized, Pittsburgh police officers (who are not named in this lawsuit) harassed the owners of the Everybody’s Kitchen bus, which had come to the City to feed demonstrators.
10

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg1e11o1f o1f616
54. That bus was parked, with the owner’s permission, in a private residential driveway in the City’s Bloomfield neighborhood.
55. The police claimed that the bus was illegally parked because it was obstructing a sidewalk.
56. In fact, only the emergency ladder attached to the back of the bus was sticking out onto the sidewalk, encroaching not more than one foot and leaving plenty of room for pedestrians to pass by safely. The alleged obstruction was remedied by bus owners removing the ladder.
57. Nevertheless, the police demanded documents showing proof of bus ownership, and insisted that people affiliated with the bus provide personal identification, even though under Pennsylvania law the police have no authority to demand identification in such situations.
58. The next day, after Mr. Bowersox had retrieved the Seeds of Peace bus and parked it on private property in north Oakland, several police cars arrived on the scene and asked to speak with the property’s owner to discuss the bus. The property owner advised the police that he had given permission for the bus to be parked on his property.
59. Since the arrival of the bus, officers from the City of Pittsburgh Police Department have routinely and randomly driven by the property, including drive-bys in the middle of the night with the officers shining large spot lights onto the property and into the windows of the Seeds of Peace and Everybody’s Kitchen buses.
60. The ongoing surveillance of the “food buses” in Pittsburgh to feed demonstrators and the foregoing incidents demonstrate that the defendants’ actions, including the illegal search
11

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg1e21o2f o1f616
and seizure of the Seeds of Peace bus, were not random, unauthorized actions of individual police officers, but rather were directed and/or ratified by policymakers within the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. Pittsburgh Police Stage a Warrantless Raid of the Property Where the Seeds of Peace Bus is Parked 61. At about 11:30 on Sunday night, September 20, approximately forty Pittsburgh police officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons, arrived at private property on Sassafrass Street in Pittsburgh’s Lawrenceville neighborhood. 62. The Seeds of Peace and Everybody’s Kitchen buses are parked on the property with the owner’s permission, where they have been preparing food for the upcoming 3RCC demonatrations. 63. Without a warrant, the police came approximately 25 feet onto the property where they demanded that the property owner allow them entry onto the premises. They informed the owner that this was a national security investigation and that no warrant was necessary. 64. After about twenty minutes of discussion the owner allowed the police onto the property. The police searched the entire property, except for the buses. 65. The Police asked Seeds of Peace members for consent to search the bus, but group members refused. The police were told they could not search a refrigeration unit containing food for the week, but the Police searched the cooler without consent, probable cause or exigent circumstances. 66. The warrantless search of the premises resulted in no arrests or confiscation of items. Pittsburgh Police Detain Four Seeds of Peace members for “loitering.”
12

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg1e31o3f o1f616
67. Shortly after the Sunday evening raid on the Sassafrass Street property, at about 1:30 a.m. on Monday, September 21, four Seeds of Peace members left the area for the less-thenone-mile walk to the home where they are staying.
68. Almost immediately a vehicle’s lights were shone on them. Shortly thereafter the vehicle drove directly at them at a high rate of speed, screeching to a stop right in front of them.
69. Approximately thirteen Pittsburgh police officers jumped out of the van, laughing. 70. The officers demanded to know what the four Seeds’ members were doing on the street,
stated that this was an “official investigation” and demanded that the four produce identification, which they did. 71. The police also searched one of the four Seeds’ members bags, again without warrant, probable cause or exigent circumstances. No Police found no contraband. 72. When group members asked if they were free to leave, the Police said that they were not: they were being “detained.” 73. When Seeds’ members asked on what ground they were being detained, the police said “loitering.” 74. The four group members were detained for nearly an hour and then released to continue walking. 75. The Police issued no citations and did not arrest anyone. Ongoing Police Harassment Monday Morning 76. As of this writing, Pittsburgh Police have returned to the Sassafrass Street address. Again without either search or arrest warrants, they are demanding that Seeds’ members produce identification. Two are being detained without charge.
13

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg1e41o4f o1f616
CLAIMS Claim 1: Illegal Search -Violation of the Fourth Amendment (Bowersox v. All Defendants) 77. Defendants’ search of the bus on Friday, September 18, without consent, exigent
circumstances and/or a search warrant violated Plaintiffs Seeds of Peace and Bowersox’s right to be free from unreasonable searches except upon probable cause and a warrant under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Claim 2: Illegal Seizure -Violation of the Fourth Amendment (Bowersox v. All Defendants) 78. Defendants’ seizure of the Seeds of Peace bus without probable cause or other lawful reason violated Plaintiffs Seeds of Peace and Bowersox’s right to be free from unreasonable property seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Claim 3: First Amendment Retaliation (Bowersox v. All Defendants) 79. Defendants’ search and seizure of the Seeds of Peace bus was in retaliation for Plaintiffs Seeds of Peace and Bowersox’s announced intention to engage in constitutionally protected association with, and provision of food and medical supplies to, demonstrators against the G-20 summit, which is a violation of Mr. Bowersox’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to be free from retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights. Claim 4: Fourth Amendment Violations (Seeds of Peace v. City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police) 80. Defendants’ illegal detention and search of the four Seeds of Peace members on Monday morning, September 21, 2009, violated their right to be free from unreasonable searches
14

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg1e51o5f o1f616
and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Claim 5: First Amendment Retaliation (3RCC and Seeds of Peace v. City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police) 81. Defendants’ illegal searches, seizures and harassment constitutes retaliation against
Plaintiffs 3RCC and Seeds of Peace over their effort to engage in constitutionallyprotected political activity in Pittsburgh public spaces and in retaliation for 3RCC’s lawsuit and victory in getting a federal court injunction ordering the City to allow them to use Point State Park, all of which violates the groups’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Officers, employees and agents of Defendant City of Pittsburgh Police Bureau have engaged in a deliberate, intentional and persistent pattern of misconduct in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution over the past few days against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs face a credible threat that such misconduct will continue in the future absent judicial intervention.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court: a. Declare that the Defendants’ actions violated the Plaintiffs’ rights under the First,
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; b. Issue injunctive relief, preliminary and permanent thereafter, enjoining the City of
Pittsburgh Bureau of Police and their officials, officers, employees, agents, assigns and any other people working in concert with them, from detaining or searching Plaintiffs except upon properly executed search or arrest warrants; c. Award damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be decided at trial;
15

CaCsaes1e:025:0-m9-cc-v0-200122575-GDLoLcumDoecnut m15e2nt 1 FiFleilded090/92/12/12/00099 PaPgaeg1e61o6f o1f616

d. Award Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; e. Grant such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate to protect
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael J. Healey Michael J. Healey PA Id. No. 27283

/s/ Witold J. Walczak Witold J. Walczak PA Id. No. 62976

/s/ Glen S. Downey Glen Downey PA Id. No. 209461

/s/ Sara J. Rose Sara J. Rose PA Id. No. 204936

Healey & Hornack, P.C. The Pennsylvanian, Suite C-2 1100 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-7711 (412) 281-9509 fax mike@unionlawyers.net glen@unionlawyers.net
/s/ Jules Lobel Jules Lobel

American Civil Liberties UnionFoundation
of Pennsylvania 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 681-7864 (412) 681-8707 fax vwalczak@aclupgh.org srose@aclupgh.org

Center for Constitutional Rights 3900 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260 (412) 334-1379 (412) 281-9509 (fax) Jll4@pitt.edu

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Date: September 21, 2009

16

 
 Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 1 of 33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE and

)

THREE RIVERS CLIMATE

)

CONVERGENCE,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF PITTSBURGH; LUKE

)

RAVENSTAHL, Mayor City of Pittsburgh; )

MICHAEL HUSS, Director of Public Safety, )

City of Pittsburgh; NATHAN HARPER,

)

Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police;

)

WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, Assistant Chief, )

Pittsburgh Bureau of Police; MICHAEL T. )

RADLEY, Assistant Director, Pittsburgh City )

Parks; OFFICER SELLERS (Badge No.

)

3602); OFFICER ERIC KURVACH (Badge )

No. 3480); OFFICERS DOE 1-100,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-1275 (Lancaster, C.J.)
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. This lawsuit alleges that City of Pittsburgh officials deliberately adopted a strategy to

harass, intimidate, discourage and ultimately prevent the plaintiffs, two climate and

environmental-justice organizations, from exercising their First Amendment rights to free

speech and assembly during the International Coal Conference and the G-20 Summit in

Pittsburgh during the week of September 20, 2009.

2. Plaintiff, Three Rivers Climate Convergence (“3RCC”), attempted to mobilize and

support a convergence of people with like-minded views about climate and

environmental concerns to take place during the Coal and G-20 Conferences. From the

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 2 of 33
very start, defendants misled 3RCC (as they did other groups of demonstrators) about the availability of public forums, denied permits for discriminatory and specious reasons, and delayed delivering permits that had been approved, all of which significantly undermined 3RCC’s ability to plan, organize and support the Convergence. In fighting against 3RCC’s efforts to secure a permit for an overnight encampment in a large public park, City officials not only misrepresented the law and the history of authorized overnight camping in City Parks to the public and 3RCC’s lawyers, but they also testified falsely in court. Moreover, after a lawsuit forced defendants to issue permits allowing 3RCC to use the parks during daytime, City officials and agents engaged in harassment, intimidation and actual obstruction to prevent even the drastically scaled down Convergence from taking place. For instance, defendants confiscated 3RCC’s supplies and props, parked police cars to prevent a bus with educational materials from leaving a parking space to attend the demonstrations, and blocked access to the Convergence site after telling 3RCC that they would not do so. 3. Defendants’ treatment of the other plaintiff, Seeds of Peace Collective (“SOPC”), was similarly repressive. From the moment the SOPC arrived in Pittsburgh in their bio-diesel bus, defendants tried to force them to leave. In the space of one week, defendants kept SOPC under surveillance 24-hours per day, sometimes with dozens of officers; towed and impounded the bus without cause; issued traffic citations without probable cause; conducted warrantless raids and pedestrian stops; detained the bus on pretextual grounds for several hours; and coerced private citizens into revoking permission for SOPC to park the bus on their property. 4. Defendants’ deliberate efforts to prevent plaintiffs 3RCC and SOPC from exercising their
2

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 3 of 33
rights to speech and assembly during the Coal Conference and G-20 Summit were successful. They prevented the Convergence from taking place, thereby interfering with, and in many cases completely suppressing, numerous educational and political activities. This civil rights lawsuit, for declaratory relief and damages, claims that the defendants’ actions violated plaintiffs’ rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. As plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court has jurisdiction over this civil action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper. 6. Venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because the events that gave rise to this action occurred within the Western District of Pennsylvania and the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction here.
PARTIES Seeds of Peace Collective 7. SOPC is a Montana-based, non-profit-cooperative organization committed to promoting
social, environmental and climate justice. 8. Since 1986, SOPC has attended demonstrations and supported various communities and
groups working on the front lines of social change by providing them food, water, and 3

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 4 of 33
planning assistance. SOPC has supported communities working to end homelessness and nuclear proliferation, uphold Native American sovereignty, support migrant workers’ rights, stop environmental destruction, resist genetically engineered foods, and end corporate domination. 9. SOPC’s activism serves at least two functions. The group provides support to other activists in the form of food, water and planning, and their activities at demonstrations are designed to show that a sustainable lifestyle is important and achievable. 10. SOPC owns and operates a bio-diesel bus that runs on vegetable oil and solar power. The bus, a retrofitted 1986 school bus, has traveled to many places across the country to support other demonstrators and to model sustainable living during countless demonstrations. 11. SOPC, in collaboration with other local and national groups, agreed to participate in the demonstrations in Pittsburgh being organized around the International Coal Conference and the G-20 Summit during the week of September 20. 12. SOPC, which worked with 3RCC to support the Convergence, was prepared to provide nutritious food to thousands of demonstrators while simultaneously serving as a model for sustainable living, an important part of 3RCC’s message that sustainable living is both necessary and eminently attainable. Three Rivers Climate Convergence 13. Plaintiff 3RCC is a partnership of Pittsburgh-area groups and individuals, working with like-minded regional and national organizations, who share common concerns regarding climate change, environmental justice and truly sustainable living. The group planned to mobilize around the Pittsburgh G-20 Summit and the International Coal Conference,
4

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 5 of 33
which were meeting in Pittsburgh immediately before the G-20, to show the impact of local and global-climate and environmental-justice issues, and highlight ongoing positive efforts (locally and elsewhere) to create a just and sustainable world. 14. To mobilize and support the “Convergence” of like-minded people, 3RCC planned to provide a temporary, 24 hour-a-day, education-based, sustainablility-camp community with associated support infrastructure for attendees and demonstrators between September 20-25. This encampment, built and managed by the participants with handson guidance from teachers and trainers, would have been an active and participatory demonstration of sustainable living and green practices. It would have provided venues for educational workshops, films, cultural events such as music performances, meeting and organizing spaces for attendees and demonstrators, and created a hub of community support and excitement for the G-20 and coal conference protest activities. 15. 3RCC originally planned to base their demonstration in Point State Park, but, as will be described below, they were forced to relocate to Schenley Park before Defendants’ actions shut them down entirely. Defendants 16. Defendant City of Pittsburgh (“City”) is a municipal subdivision organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. 17. Luke Ravenstahl is, and at all relevant times was, the Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh. 18. Michael Huss is, and at all relevant times was, Director of Public Safety for the City of Pittsburgh. 19. Nathan Harper is, and at all relevant times was, the Chief of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police.
5

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 6 of 33
20. William E. Bochter, is, and at all relevant times was, an Assistant Chief with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. He was responsible for security relating to demonstrators during the International Coal Conference and G-20 Summit.
21. Michael T. Radley is, and at all relevant times was, the Assistant Director for Pittsburgh City Parks.
22. Defendant Officer Kevin Sellers is employed by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. 23. Defendant Officer Eric Kurvach is employed by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. 24. Defendant Officers Doe 1-100, pseudonyms, are officers from the Pittsburgh Bureau of
Police and employees of the Pittsburgh Department of Public Works and City Parks whose identities are not known at this time. The Doe Defendants will be identified during discovery. 25. All individually named defendants (including the Does) were, at all relevant times hereinafter mentioned, acting under color of state law and are being sued in their individual capacities.
FACTS ANNOUNCEMENT THAT G-20 SUMMIT WOULD BE COMING TO PITTSBURGH 26. On May 28, 2009, President Barack Obama announced that the next meeting of the
Group of Twenty (“G-20”) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors would be held at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on September 24-25, 2009. 27. The G-20 was established in 1999 to bring together important industrialized and developing nations to discuss key issues in the global economy. It includes 19 of the world’s largest national economies, plus the European Union. Government and financial
6

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 7 of 33
leaders from many of the world’s most influential and powerful nations, including Mr. Obama, were scheduled to attend the G-20 Summit. 28. G-20 Summits have attracted and continue to attract demonstrators. The demonstrators’ criticisms include, inter alia, that the G-20’s decisions result in a concentration and privatization of economic wealth with the consequent denial of financial resources for basic human needs like food, clean water and healthcare; promote violence by waging war on, and occupying, other nations, resulting in countless casualties, including innocents; and are responsible for the failure to adopt “green” policies that protect our planet’s fragile natural resources or address meaningfully the problem of global-climate change. 29. Coincidentally, Pittsburgh was scheduled to host the 26th Annual International Coal Conference at the Westin Hotel next to the Convention Center on the days immediately preceding the G-20 Summit, i.e., on September 20-23. Many of the demonstrators during the G-20, especially those involved with environmental-justice and climate-change issues, also planned to demonstrate during the Coal Conference to highlight the group’s belief that the coal industry is advocating false climate solutions. 30. Almost immediately after these events were announced, demonstrators began planning a variety of demonstrations to be held in Pittsburgh’s traditional public forums, e.g., streets and parks, to express their views on issues relevant to the Coal Conference and the G-20 Summit, including support for meaningful policy changes leading up to the Kyoto Protocol climate negotiations in December 2009 in Copenhagen. 31. 3RCC planned to conduct educational programming and demonstrations in Pittsburgh’s traditional public forums between September 20-25.
7

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 8 of 33
32. SOPC planned to serve food to 3RCC attendees and other demonstrators between September 19-26.
CITY OF PITTSBURGH OFFICIALS INTENTIONALLY DISCOURAGED, HARASSED AND ULTIMATELY SUCCEEDED IN SUPPRESSING 3RCC’S CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED DEMONSTRATIONS DURING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 20. 33. Beginning in June 2009, as a matter of policy and practice City of Pittsburgh officials,
including Defendants Mayor Ravenstahl, Public Safety Director Huss, Police Chief Harper, Assistant Chief Bochter and Assistant Parks Director Radley, deliberately misled 3RCC leaders about the availability of traditional public forums, failed to issue and deliver permits to 3RCC after publicly claiming they had been approved, outright denied 3RCC’s permit applications for specious and discriminatory reasons, and directed employees and agents to engage in various forms of harassment and intimidation, including seizing supplies that were essential to 3RCC’s planned demonstrations. 34. 3RCC’s story is emblematic of Pittsburgh’s treatment of demonstrators during the week of the G-20 Summit, especially with respect to those groups that lacked the support of politically-influential individuals or organizations and who intended to include out-oftown demonstrators. 35. A series of incidents illuminates the deliberate nature of City officials’ policy and practice to discourage, disrupt and ultimately to suppress 3RCC’s First Amendment right to exercise their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly in traditional public forums throughout the City of Pittsburgh during the G-20 Summit. The Dispute Over Point State Park 36. 3RCC’s effort to organize a Convergence of activists on climate and environmental-
8

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 9 of 33
justice issues was heavily dependent on securing a Convergence space, where educational and political activities would be centered. 37. 3RCC recognized that the United States Secret Service was likely to establish a “secure perimeter” around the Convention Center and thus make it impossible to hold the Convergence close to the Convention Center. Accordingly, 3RCC selected Point State Park as an alternate location for the Convergence. 38. Point State Park is a large, highly-visible park in downtown Pittsburgh, located 0.7 miles from the Convention Center, that is used frequently for demonstrations and festivals. 39. The defendants’ handling of 3RCC’s request to use Pointe State Park was the subject of a lawsuit, See Codepink Pittsburgh Women for Peace, et al, v. United States Secret Service, et al., 09-cv-1235 (W.D. Pa., Lancaster, C.J.), in which this Court granted an injunction ordering, inter alia, the City to issue permits to 3RCC and another group to use Point State Park. 40. We summarize here the allegations from the Codepink lawsuit, as they relate to 3RCC’s permit application, because the dispute over 3RCC’s use of Point State Park was the first in a series of incidents that make up plaintiff’s claim for damages in this case, and understanding defendants’ conduct during the permit-application process is essential to understanding how the City systematically prevented 3RCC from exercising its rights of speech and assembly.1
1 3RCC’s permit-related claims in Codepink were brought only for declaratory and injunctive relief. This case, which is for declaratory relief and damages, simply incorporates the facts from Codepink that are relevant to plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. 3RCC’s claims in Codepink were dismissed, without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), on November 3, 2009. Docket No. 32.
9

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 10 of 33
41. In July, before 3RCC or any other group could submit a permit application, City officials announced that the police and Secret Service had secured a permit to use all of Point State Park as a “staging area” for the entire week, thereby precluding all demonstrators from using any portion of the Park during that week.
42. Discouraged by City officials from pursuing a permit for Point State Park by the City’s announcement, 3RCC eventually submitted a permit application, in late July, to use a portion of the Park everyday from Sunday through Friday, September 20-25.
43. City officials claimed that they never received the application. 3RCC re-submitted it on or about August 14.
44. 3RCC’s application requested permission for the following activities: A visitor and family friendly educational and informational Event to inform the public on crucial issues in the environment and the scope of climate change, to celebrate the diversity of people and the biosphere and to engage citizens by demonstrating alternative energy, agriculture and cooperative ways to solve our planetary crisis. * * * A crucial part of this plan is to hold an encampment along with the festival to demonstrate alternative culture and to allow citizens from outside of Pittsburgh to participate and enjoy our great city.
45. By early August, City police had decided they would need only half of Point State Park (from the portal bridge to the fountain).
46. City officials failed to tell the public or 3RCC about this change in deployment and continued to insist that 3RCC and other groups could not use Point State Park during the week of the G-20.
47. In late August, Mayor Ravenstahl’s and Director Huss’s central role in deciding which groups were allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights in Pittsburgh’s traditional public forums became apparent. On August 21 and 22, Pittsburgh media reported that
10

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 11 of 33
Ravenstahl and Huss decided to approve an event entitled the “Pittsburgh Free Speech Festival” to take place in Point State Park on Wednesday evening, September 23, just one day before G-20 dignitaries were scheduled to arrive in Pittsburgh. 48. The Festival’s sponsors expected between 10,000 and 17,000 people to attend the event. 49. The Festival was co-sponsored by politically-influential people and organizations, including Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo, the United Steel Workers Union, the Blue Green Alliance and the Alliance for Climate Protection, which is an organization founded in 2006 by Al Gore, Nobel Laureate and former Vice President of the United States. Mayor Ravenstahl and Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato were featured speakers at the event. 50. 3RCC modified its request to reduce the duration of its events, to just Sunday through Tuesday, September 20-22, in order to accommodate both the City’s claimed security needs and Wednesday’s Free Speech Festival, and withdrew their request to stay overnight. 51. The City still refused to issue a permit, insisting that it now would be impossible to allow 3RCC to hold even these more limited events in Point State Park because the City needed those three days to set up for the Great Race, an annual event that attracts more than 10,000 athletes and that was scheduled for Sunday, September 27, and to dismantle the Junior Great Race, a much smaller, children’s version of the Great Race that was scheduled for Sunday morning, September 20. 52. On September 8, however, when the politically-influential organizers of the Free Speech Festival requested permission to use Point State Park all day on Tuesday, September 22, to set up for Wednesday evening’s event, the City agreed. The City granted the approval
11

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 12 of 33
even though, unlike 3RCC, the Free Speech Festival sponsors had never filed a permit application to use Point State Park on Tuesday, September 22. 53. 3RCC once again adapted in response to this new development, requesting that the City allow it to use the Park from Sunday afternoon through Monday. 54. City officials again refused the request, now claiming that dismantling the Junior Great Race could not possibly be completed before Tuesday morning. 55. On September 11, 2009, 3RCC and five other groups sued the City, claiming that, inter alia, the City’s refusal to allow 3RCC to use Point State Park was unconstitutional. Codepink Pittsburgh Women for Peace, et al, v. United States Secret Service, et al., 09cv-1235. 56. Documents obtained through discovery in that lawsuit revealed that the permit application submitted by the Junior Great Race indicated that the event would be completely dismantled by 2:00 p.m. on Sunday afternoon, September 20. 57. Nevertheless, City witnesses at the Codepink preliminary-injunction hearing, including Defendant Michael Radley, still insisted that the City could not allow 3RCC and Codepink to use Point State Park on Sunday afternoon through Tuesday. 58. On September 17, this Court granted 3RCC an injunction ordering the City to make Point State Park available on Sunday and Monday (3RCC had already negotiated with Free Speech Festival organizers the right to use a portion of the Park on Tuesday). 59. The City’s refusal to allow 3RCC to use Point State Park for any part of the week beginning September 20 was based not on any legitimate interest in security or preservation of the forum for permit holders, but on a desire to obstruct 3RCC’s efforts to organize and demonstrate around the G-20 by denying 3RCC a forum to conduct its
12

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 13 of 33
Convergence. 60. The City’s refusal to grant a permit for Point State Park prevented 3RCC from being able
to plan the event, organize programs, raise money and advertise for people to attend. Without a venue, the necessary planning was irreparably hampered. Overnight Camping in Schenley Park 61. In addition to the request for overnight use at Point State Park, 3RCC also requested permission to erect a Climate Camp, to accompany the Convergence, at Schenley Park. 62. Mayor Ravenstahl and Public Safety Director Mike Huss initially claimed that City law prohibited all overnight camping in municipal parks and thus all requests for permission to camp overnight would be denied. Once again, however, this claim was not accurate. 63. The relevant provision in the Pittsburgh City Code states: “(d) Camping. No person in a park shall camp except with permission of the Director and only for groups of persons with adequate supervision.” Pittsburgh City Code, § 473.04(d) (emphasis added). 64. Moreover, 3RCC’s research disclosed that in 2007 the City had exercised the discretion conferred by the Code to allow 200 school and college students (sponsored by a group called “Invisible Children”) to participate in an overnight camp to raise awareness about Ugandan children displaced and made homeless by war. 65. City officials responded to this revelation by telling 3RCC that the City had made an administrative decision, because of problems after the 2007 Invisible Children event, to henceforth prohibit all overnight camping in City parks. Once again, this claim was untrue. 66. Overnight camping at Schenley Park was an issue raised in the Codepink case, but on this matter the Court denied relief. Presumably, plaintiffs’ inability to rebut the City’s claim
13

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 14 of 33
that no overnight camping had been permitted in City Parks since 2007 played a role in the Court’s decision. The City’s claim, however, was based on further deceit. 67. At the Codepink preliminary-injunction hearing on September 16, plaintiffs introduced evidence that the City had allowed Invisible Children to hold another overnight tent encampment in Schenley Park on April 25-26, 2009. If true, this evidence undermined the City’s claims that the Invisible Children event in 2007 was problematic and that no camping had been allowed since 2007. 68. The City’s witnesses, in sworn testimony, denied that the camping in April 2009 had taken place, and proclaimed that the City had never issued a permit for that event. 69. In fact, evidence acquired by Codepink attorneys after the September 16 preliminary-injunction hearing showed that the Invisible Children demonstration did take place and that the City had issued a permit for the overnight event at Schenley Park, which was held as scheduled on April 25-26, 2009. 70. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have since learned that the City allows drivers participating in the Vintage Grand Prix, an annual car race run through Schenley Park, to camp in the Park before the race. 71. Consequently, as with the permits at Point State Park, City officials engaged in deceit and misrepresentation to justify denying 3RCC permission to camp overnight in Schenley Park, an activity the City has previously authorized for other organizations. 72. The City’s refusal to allow 3RCC to erect overnight encampments that modeled sustainability and provide critical support for the demonstrations shows further the City’s true intentions, which were to discourage and ultimately suppress 3RCC’s right to engage in constitutionally protected demonstrations in traditional public forums around the City.
14

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 15 of 33
The City Delays Issuing and Delivering Permits 73. It is extremely difficult for 3RCC, as it is for most groups, to plan a demonstration, raise
financial and other support, organize people to do the work, and attract participants when the government entity refuses to issue the actual permit for an event. Most organizing activities relating to such a political Convergence are dependent on identifying and securing a suitable venue. 74. Beyond the City’s refusal to issue a permit to 3RCC to use Point State Park, which was discussed above, the City delayed issuing 3RCC a permit to use Schenley Park. Many groups experienced the same problem. 75. The City began announcing in late August that various permit applications for demonstrations had been approved, but the actual permits were not issued. 76. Indeed, the City’s failure to deliver the permits was an issue in the Codepink litigation. Not until after that lawsuit was filed on September 11 did the City actually deliver permits to many of the groups. 77. 3RCC had applied for a permit to use Schenley Park in early September. It was not, however, until September 16 (the morning of the Codepink preliminary-injunction hearing), literally 5 days before the event was supposed to begin, that the City delivered to 3RCC a permit to use Schenley Park. 78. The City’s denial of 3RCC’s permit to use Point State Park and the delay in delivering a permit for Schenley Park left 3RCC with only five days to plan, organize, raise money and advertise the events, greatly compromising 3RCC’s effort and causing a significant decrease in participation at 3RCC’s events and virtually destroying the group. 79. This in turn significantly injured 3RCC’s ability to exercise its rights to free speech and
15

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 16 of 33
assembly, including the hosting of educational activities and petitioning the government for redress of grievances. City Police Attempt to Intimidate Participants 80. On Monday, September 21, as 3RCC was still trying to make up for the lost set-up time caused by the City’s delay in issuing permits, City police attempted to intimidate people participating in the Schenley Park demonstration. After the denial of permission for an overnight Climate Camp, 3RCC scaled back their plans and proceeded to organize a “Sustainability Fair.” 81. Approximately every 10-15 minutes, a mobile-field force comprising 5-8 vans and cars full of uniformed police officers would drive slowly by, sometimes pausing in front of, the Sustainability Fair, which was being set up at Schenley Overlook. Officers in at least one or two police cars kept the event under constant surveillance. 82. People who wanted to participate in or visit the Sustainability Fair were discouraged from doing so by the large police presence. City Police Prevent “Permaculture Bus” From Participating in Demonstrations 83. Meanwhile, on Thomas Boulevard in the City’s Point Breeze neighborhood, a bus that had come to Pittsburgh to be part of the 3RCC’s Convergence, was parked in a private driveway with the owner’s permission. 84. The bus, referred to either as the “Permaculture Bus” or the “Bus for the New Millennium,” is a re-modeled school bus that is used to demonstrate sustainable living. Two people live on the bus, and it includes animals, composting toilet and educational life-cycle exhibits about sustainable living. 85. Because of the defendants’ harassment and intimidation, the bus was unable to
16

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 17 of 33
participate, as 3RCC had planned, in the demonstrations at Schenley and Point State Parks. 86. Police cars, often many at one time, parked in on the street near the bus. A police helicopter hovered overhead for much of the week. 87. On Monday, September 21, a police vehicle parked in front of the driveway, blocking the bus from leaving the property to participate in the 3RCC demonstrations in Point State Park and Schenley Park. City Seizes All 3RCC Props and Supplies 88. As a result of the City’s overnight camping ban, 3RCC was posed with a logistical problem: the Sustainability Fair at Schenley Overlook, required tents, tables, chairs, educational materials, etc. Taking down the tent and removing all of the materials every evening would be extremely burdensome. 89. On Sunday afternoon, September 20, Defendant Radley gave 3RCC permission to store its tent and supplies overnight in Schenley Park. He wrote to 3RCC that the City did not “plan to remove your vehicle or overnight tent.” 90. 3RCC had asked permission to leave one or two people to provide security for the supplies during the night, but Radley and other City officials had refused, claiming that would be illegal overnight camping. 91. Relying on Radley’s assurance, 3RCC did in fact leave the afore-described items in Schenley Park overnight between Monday, September 21, and Tuesday, September 22. 3RCC members left the park at approximately 11:00 p.m. on Monday night. 92. When they returned early on Tuesday morning, all of the items were gone. This did not appear to be the work of looters or vandals, as all of the pamphlets and other educational
17

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 18 of 33
materials had been removed, and the area appeared to have been swept clean. 93. Later that morning, the City’s spokeswoman, Joanna Doven, denied 3RCC’s allegation
that Pittsburgh Police had taken their property. According to the Pittsburgh TribuneReview, she told a reporter that the removal “wasn’t a police thing. It was Public Works.” 94. 3RCC and its lawyers repeatedly attempted, on that day and on subsequent days, to contact City officials about the confiscated property. City officials failed to return any of those calls or emails, despite the fact that they were returning calls and emails about other G20-related matters. 95. Now, on top of the problems already caused by the City’s delays in issuing permits, the City had seized all of the props and materials needed for the Sustainability Fair at Schenley Oval, thereby completely preventing any meaningful demonstration and public education, and negating literally thousands of hours of planning and organizing work. 96. To this day 3RCC has not recovered the property confiscated by the City or been reimbursed for it. The City Further Impedes 3RCC’s Access to Remnants of Sustainability Fair 97. Even after the City’s Monday night property seizure had left the Sustainability Fair a mere skeleton operation, the City continued to interfere with the remains of the demonstration. 98. On Monday, September 21, the City alerted 3RCC to the fact that the Secret Service would be limiting access to Schenley Park on Thursday, September 24, to prepare security for the G-20 meeting at the nearby Phipps Conservatory. The City gave assurances that while there would be restrictions on vehicular traffic, pedestrian and
18

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 19 of 33
bicycle access would be unimpeded, and that the Fair could take place. 99. But on Thursday morning, September 24, City police and other law-enforcement
agencies working with City police, prohibited 3RCC organizers from entering the park, either on bicycle or foot, and in particular refused them access to Schenley Overlook, where the remnants of the Sustainability Fair were being held. 100. Only after 3RCC’s attorneys complained to the City’s lawyers were they told that only one entrance to the park was open, but by then it was too late to set up the day’s planned activities. Conclusion 101. The City’s actions effectively prevented 3RCC from holding a Convergence of climate and environmental-justice activists in Pittsburgh. 102. The City wrongfully denied 3RCC a permit. By the time 3RCC could secure court remedy, the event was severely compromised. After that, the City took additional steps to ensure that even a small-scale Convergence did not occur. CITY OF PITTSBURGH OFFICIALS HARASSED AND DELIBERATELY INTERFERED WITH SOPC’S RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY. 103. In a decision made at the highest levels of the Pittsburgh Police Bureau, a decision that included Defendants Huss, Harper and Bochter, the City targeted SOPC and other organizations providing support to demonstrators, like medics and independent media (Indymedia), for intensive surveillance, harassment, intimidation and other tactics designed to neutralize these groups’ ability to feed, provide medical aid to, educate and inform the public about the G-20 protests, and lend other support to demonstrators. 104. From the moment SOPC arrived in the City of Pittsburgh, City officials and agents
19

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 20 of 33
subjected group members to round-the-clock surveillance and daily harassment. City Officials Direct Impoundment of the Bus Without Just Cause 105. After driving their bus from Montana, SOPC arrived in the Pittsburgh area on Sunday,
September 13, 2009. That night, the bus parked outside Pittsburgh City limits. 106. On Monday, September 14, 2009, SOPC members parked the bus on Melwood Avenue
in Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood. 107. The bus was parked against traffic, but was not obstructing vehicular movement,
driveways, or fire hydrants. 108. SOPC members saw other vehicles parked against traffic on that street. 109. The owner of the Melwood Avenue property consented to SOPC parking their bus in
front of the residence. 110. The bus remained parked at the Melwood Avenue location from Monday, September 14,
2009, until Friday, September 18, 2009, without incident. The bus was not moved between Monday and Friday, remaining parked in the exact same place. 111. It was apparent that Pittsburgh Police officials were not only aware of SOPC members’ presence in the City, but that they directed rank-and-file police to monitor the bus and SOPC activities. 112. During that week, many Pittsburgh police cars drove past the bus, and on several occasions, cars or vans carrying police officers parked nearby and simply sat and observed the bus and SOPC members who were in the vicinity. 113. On Friday morning, September 18, 2009, SOPC members left the bus unattended for about an hour. 114. Upon returning to the bus at about 1:00 p.m., SOPC members saw a Pittsburgh police
20

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 21 of 33
officer (later identified as Officer Kurvach) on the bus, while Defendant Sellers stood in the vehicle’s doorway. 115. At no time did the defendant police officers indicate that they had a search warrant to board the bus, nor did they ever show the SOPC members a search warrant. 116. The SOPC members’ inquiries to the police about why the officers were on the bus were never answered. 117. SOPC members advised the officers that they did not consent to any entry or search of the bus. 118. The defendant police officers responded belligerently, demanding that the SOPC members provide proof of the vehicle’s ownership. 119. The defendant police officers also loudly ordered everyone to produce identification cards and social security numbers. Pennsylvania does not have a statute requiring people to produce identification upon demand. 120. Although the SOPC members had a key to the bus and could have moved it, Defendant Sellers refused to discuss the matter and instead called for a tow truck. 121. It is unclear why the police would not let SOPC simply move the bus. 122. A tow truck arrived quickly and towed the bus to an impound lot. 123. No one had reported the vehicle as being stolen and the defendants never informed SOPC members that they believed the bus was stolen. 124. At no time during the course of this incident did the defendant police officers tell SOPC members that the bus had been illegally parked. The defendant officers claimed at one point that the bus was towed because it was “over tonnage” for the neighborhood. 125. Even if the bus had been illegally parked, which the police at the time never claimed, the
21

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 22 of 33
proper procedure would have been to issue the operator a citation for illegal parking and instruct him to move the vehicle, not to impound it. According to the Pittsburgh City Code, a vehicle parked in violation of the Commonwealth Vehicle Code can only be removed or towed “upon authorization of the Superintendent of Police” and then only if neither the owner or operator is present to move the vehicle. See Sections 523.02(a), 525.05. Defendant Harper is the Superintendent of Police. 126. SOPC was able to regain possession of the bus, but not until after they paid $220.00 and were forced to retrieve the vehicle from the City’s tow pound at approximately 9:30 p.m. on Friday night. 127. During the time that the City had control of the SOPC bus, the bus’s large side mirrors were shattered. 128. The individual defendant police officers’ actions on September 18 were not a random, unauthorized seizure of the bus. 129. As noted above, Pittsburgh police had the SOPC bus under surveillance since at least the morning of Tuesday, September 15, 2009. City Police Keep SOPC Under Constant Surveillance 130. On that Friday night, September 18, after SOPC retrieved the bus from the tow pound, they drove it to a scrap-metal-art studio on the 3600-block of Sassafras Street in Pittsburgh’s Lawrenceville neighborhood. The proprietors of the property, who were long-time lessees (hereafter “lessees”), gave SOPC permission to park its bus on the premises and begin food preparation. 131. Almost immediately, several Pittsburgh police cars arrived on the scene and asked to speak with the property’s owner about the SOPC bus. The lessees advised the police that
22

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 23 of 33
they had given permission for the bus to be parked on their property. 132. During the approximately three days the SOPC bus was parked on the Sassafras Street
property, Pittsburgh police parked one or more large vans filled with officers next to the property and drove by the property in marked and unmarked cars dozens of times per day. 133. Even at night, the police frequently drove by the property, and on several occasions shined a large spotlight onto the property and into the windows of the SOPC bus. Pittsburgh Police Stage a Warrantless Raid of the Property Where the SOPC Bus Is Parked 134. At about 11:30 on Sunday night, September 20, approximately forty Pittsburgh police officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons, arrived at the Sassafras Street property. 135. Although they had no warrant, the police came approximately 25 feet onto the property before they demanded that the lessees allow them entry onto the premises. 136. They informed lessees that the search was part of a “national security investigation” and that no warrant was necessary. 137. After about twenty minutes of discussion, the lessees allowed the police onto the property. The police searched the entire property, except for the buses. 138. The Police asked SOPC members for consent to search the bus, but group members refused. The police were told they could not search SOPC’s refrigeration unit containing food for the week, but the police nevertheless searched the cooler without consent, probable cause or exigent circumstances. 139. The warrantless search of the premises resulted in no arrests or confiscation of any items.
23

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 24 of 33
Pittsburgh Police Detain Four SOPC Members for “Loitering” 140. Shortly after the Sunday evening raid on the Sassafras Street property, at about 1:30 a.m.
on Monday, September 21, four people, including two SOPC members and two other people working with them, left the area to walk less than a mile to the house where they were staying. 141. Almost immediately upon leaving the Sassafras Street site, the four people were pulled over by a van load of riot-gear-clad police. 142. The officers demanded to know what the four people were doing on the street, stated that this was an “official investigation” and demanded that the four produce identification, which they did. 143. The police also searched a bag belonging to one of the four people, again without warrant, probable cause or exigent circumstances. Police found no contraband items. 144. When the people asked if they were free to leave, the police said that they were not, stating that they were being “detained,” and when pressed further for a reason were told that it was for “loitering.” 145. The four group members were detained for nearly half an hour and then released to continue walking. 146. The police issued no citations and did not arrest anyone. City Building and Zoning Officers Coerce Sassafras Street Property Owner to Evict SOPC 147. After daylight on Monday morning, September 21, Pittsburgh police intensified their surveillance and harassment of SOPC. Again, without warrants, police demanded that SOPC members, who had not ventured off the private property, produce identification. SOPC members complied with the request.
24

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 25 of 33
148. Also early on Monday morning, a building inspector came to advise the lessees that they were in violation of the City Zoning Code because they had failed to obtain an occupancy permit for the buses, and that failure to evict them immediately could result in $1000-perday fines.
149. After the lessees consulted with lawyers, who advised them that the Zoning Code did not in fact require them to obtain an occupancy permit to authorize the buses to park on the property, they advised the building inspector that they would not evict the buses.
150. Thereafter, at about noon on Monday, the lessees were summoned to a meeting with the property owner, two of his lawyers, a City of Pittsburgh Building Inspector and several Pittsburgh police officers.
151. The property owner advised the lessees that the City had informed him that he could be fined $1000 per day if the buses were allowed to remain on the property, and that he was instructing the lessee to evict the buses or face termination of the lease.
152. The lessee promptly acceded to the demand and directed SOPC to immediately vacate the premises.
The Lincoln-Larimer Neighborhood Traffic Stop 153. SOPC obtained permission from the owner of an abandoned school in Pittsburgh’s
Lincoln-Larimer neighborhood to park the bus on the premises. The School is located at the corner of Larimer Avenue and Winslow Street. 154. At approximately 6:30 p.m. on Monday evening, the bus left the Sassafras Street property to make the three-plus mile drive to the Lincoln-Larimer school building. 155. The bus was immediately followed by Pittsburgh police in a variety of vehicles. 156. The bus turned right from Larimer Avenue onto Winslow Street, a one-way road, from
25

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 26 of 33
which it planned to pull into the abandoned school yard. 157. Just as the bus was about to make the left turn into the school, a Pittsburgh police van
pulled into the entrance, blocking the bus from entering the school and forcing it to pull partially onto the sidewalk. 158. A Pittsburgh police officer immediately approached the SOPC-bus driver and advised him that he was being issued a citation for illegal parking on the sidewalk. 159. When the SOPC-bus driver objected that he was forced up onto the sidewalk by the police vehicle, that he was not “parked,” and that the engine was still running, the police officer directed the driver to turn off the engine. 160. As soon as the driver complied with the directive, the Pittsburgh police officer issued him a citation for illegal parking. 161. Meanwhile, nearly 100 Pittsburgh police officers, some in riot gear and several with large police dogs, arrived on the scene within minutes of the traffic stop. Sirens and barking dogs could be heard for miles around, while helicopters hovered overhead. 162. Police parked dozens of vehicles on Winslow Street, Larimer Avenue and other nearby streets, blocking all traffic. 163. Pittsburgh police detained the bus for over two hours, apparently attempting to find some violation for which to cite SOPC. 164. The police first argued with the SOPC driver that he was illegally transporting goods in interstate commerce without a license. 165. Then police then claimed that the bus was illegal because it did not have a Pennsylvania inspection sticker. Since the bus was registered in Montana, it did not need a Pennsylvania sticker.
26

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 27 of 33
166. The police then summoned a “commercial inspection team” to examine the bus, literally from top to bottom. The inspection team tested the brakes, examined the engine and tires, measured clearances and, for over an hour, performed every conceivable safety test.
167. Finding no safety problem, the police then pored over vehicle, safety and traffic manuals in search of some reason to cite SOPC.
168. After two hours police issued a $500 (plus costs) citation to the SOPC driver for failure to have a “passenger endorsement” on his license. This was the first time SOPC had been issued such a citation despite having driven the bus for hundreds of thousands of miles, across many states.
169. The parking-on-the-curb citation was for $94. 170. The police also advised SOPC that they could not move the bus, even the 20 yards into
the school yard, unless they had a driver with a passenger endorsement on the license. 171. Accordingly, the police ordered the bus to remain parked in the same spot, partially on
the sidewalk, even though they had just issued SOPC a citation for parking there. 172. The Pittsburgh police also told SOPC that they would tow and impound the bus (again) if
it was not removed by daybreak. 173. After a two-hour-plus seizure and extensive search of the bus involving about 100
officers, Pittsburgh police issued two citations: one for illegally parking on a sidewalk onto which the police had forced the bus; and the other for an unusual license violation. 174. An off-duty Port Authority bus driver eventually volunteered to move the SOPC bus into the schoolyard. He advised SOPC that the “passenger endorsement” applied only to commercial buses that transported 16 or more passengers. The SOPC was neither commercial nor capable of seating 16 people.
27

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 28 of 33
175. In November, both citations were dismissed by a District Magistrate. The City Again Coerces the Property Owner to Evict SOPC from the Lincoln-Larimer School 176. Several hours after police left the bus in Lincoln-Larimer, they returned at about 2:00
a.m. on Tuesday morning, September 22. 177. A large field force of police amassed on an the adjacent street. 178. The police had with them the property owner. He told SOPC that he had received so
many complaints – not about SOPC but about sirens and police flooding the neighborhood – that he was revoking their permission to stay at the school and that they needed to leave. 179. Later that morning, after SOPC again packed its gear to leave the school, the bus driver – the same one from the night before who did not have the passenger endorsement – asked the Pittsburgh police officers on the scene whether he could drive the bus. They told him that he was free to do so. SOPC Moves the Bus for a Third Time and Again Experiences Harassment 180. On Tuesday morning, September 22, for the third time in five days, SOPC was forced by the City actions to move its bus. 181. SOPC received permission from a Lutheran Church on Pittsburgh’s Northside to park the bus in the church parking lot. 182. The bus remained parked there for several hours without incident. In the meantime, SOPC’s attorneys were in court for a hearing on their request for a temporary restraining order in this case. 183. Almost immediately after this Court denied SOPC’s TRO motion, uniformed Pittsburgh
28

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 29 of 33
police officers arrived at the church parking lot. 184. The officers approached the church’s pastor to question him about allowing the bus to
use the church’s lot. 185. The pastor confirmed that he had authorized SOPC to park its bus in the church lot. 186. Pittsburgh police officers then attempted to convince the pastor to evict the bus. They
argued that the City could exercise “eminent domain” over the lot. The pastor knew enough to reject that argument. 187. Pittsburgh police then told the pastor that the SOPC bus’s parking spot blocked a City easement and could not remain parked in that location. Again, the pastor knew that was not the case and resisted the police officers’ efforts to force him to evict the bus. 188. With a steadfast pastor who refused to be intimidated by the Pittsburgh police, the bus remained at the church parking lot for the next week until SOPC left the City on or about September 29. DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY HARASSED AND INTERFERED WITH BOTH 3RCC’S AND SOPC’S PROTEST-RELATED ACTIVITIES IN A CONCERTED EFFORT TO STOP THE GROUPS FROM EXPRESSING THEIR POLITICAL MESSAGES DURING THE COAL CONFERENCE AND G-20 SUMMIT IN PITTSBURGH 189. Defendants’ many acts of deceit, obstructionism, harassment and intimidation, as chronicled above, reflect a deliberate attempt by Defendants Ravenstahl, Huss, Harper, Bochter and other high-ranking City officials to prevent 3RCC and SOPC from staging and participating in constitutionally protected political demonstrations during the G-20 Summit. 190. As a result of defendants’ actions, 3RCC was unable to stage the planned climate Convergence in Pittsburgh. Defendants’ actions silenced the group’s political message
29

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 30 of 33
about the perils of global-climate change and the need for environmental justice. 191. As a result of defendants’ actions, SOPC was unable to participate in the Convergence or
even move their bus to participate in any demonstrations, so that they could model sustainable living, during the week of September 20, and SOPC’s ability to provide food to demonstrators was greatly compromised. 192. The strategy to interfere with and subvert Plaintiffs’ demonstration-related activities, adopted by Defendants Ravenstahl, Huss, Harper and Bochter, was a deliberate, outrageous and malicious effort to prevent plaintiffs from exercising their First Amendment rights. 193. In addition to interfering with plaintiffs rights of expression and assembly, defendants’ actions caused plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress.
CLAIMS 3RCC
Claim 1: First Amendment (against all Defendants) 194. Defendants’ refusal to award permits, and then delays in delivering the actual permits, for
protests in Point State Park and Schenley Park violated Plaintiff 3RCC’s rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as that provision is applied to municipal governments and their officials by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 195. Defendants’ refusal to award permits for overnight tent cities in Point State Park and Schenley Park violated Plaintiff 3RCC’s rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as that provision is applied to municipal governments and their officials by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
30

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 31 of 33
196. Defendants’ decisions and actions to a) initially deny and then delay issuing permits; b) deny permission for overnight tent cities; c) harass, discourage and interfere with the SOPC food service; d) confiscate 3RCC’s property from Schenley Park; and e) the other harassment tactics discussed in this First Amended Complaint subverted and in some cases completely prevented 3RCC from exercising its rights under the Speech and Assembly Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as that provision is applied to municipal governments and their officials by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Claim 2: Fourth Amendment (against Defendants City of Pittsburgh and Radley) 197. Defendants’ confiscation of 3RCC’s property from Schenley Park was a deliberate
seizure of property in violation of Plaintiff 3RCC’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as that provision is applied to municipal governments and their officials by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
SOPC Claim 3: First Amendment (against Defendants City of Pittsburgh, Huss, Harper and Bochter) 198. Defendants’ harassment of SOPC members, impoundment of and interference with the
operation of the bio-diesel bus, and other actions that interfered with SOPC’s ability to participate in 3RCC’s demonstrations and to provide food support for G-20 demonstrators violated SOPC’s rights under the First Amendment’s speech and assembly clauses, as applied to municipal governments and their officials by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 199. Alternatively, Defendants’ harassment of SOPC members, impoundment of and
31

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 32 of 33
interference with the operation of the bio-diesel bus, and other actions that impeded SOPC’s ability to participate in 3RCC’s demonstrations and to provide food support for G-20 demonstrators, constituted unlawful retaliation against SOPC in violation of the group’s right to engage in constitutionally-protected expressive activities, a right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as that provision is applied to municipal governments and their officials by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Claim 4: Fourth Amendment (against Defendants City of Pittsburgh, Huss, Harper, Bochter, Sellers, Kurvach and Doe Police Officers) 200. Defendants’ decisions and actions to search and impound the SOPC bus on Friday, September 18, which caused the destruction of the bus’s two side mirrors; to search the SOPC refrigeration unit on Sunday night, September 20; to stop and detain four SOPC activists for loitering on Monday morning, September 21; and to seize and then constructively impound the SOPC bus on September 21-22, violated Plaintiff SOPC’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as that provision is applied to municipal governments and their officials by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court: a. Declare that the Defendants’ actions violated the Plaintiffs’ rights under the First,
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; b. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be decided at trial;
32

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 15 Filed 12/11/09 Page 33 of 33

c. Award punitive damages against Defendants Ravenstahl, Huss, Harper and Bochter for their deliberate, outrageous and malicious conduct in violating Plaintiffs’ First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights;
d. Award Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; e. Grant such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate to protect
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael J. Healey Michael J. Healey PA Id. No. 27283 /s/ Glen Downey Glen Downey PA Id. No. 209461 Healey & Hornack, P.C. The Pennsylvanian, Suite C-2 1100 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-7711 (412) 281-9509 fax

/s/ Witold J. Walczak Witold J. Walczak PA Id. No. 62976 /s/ Sara J. Rose Sara J. Rose PA Id. No. 204936 American Civil Liberties Union-Foundation
of Pennsylvania 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 681-7864 (412) 681-8707 fax

/s/ Jules Lobel Jules Lobel Center for Constitutional Rights 3900 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260 (412) 334-1379 (412) 281-9509 (fax)

/s/ Jon Pushinsky Jon Pushinsky PA I.D. No. 30434 1808 Law and Finance Building 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 281-6800

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Date: December 11, 2009

33

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE

) 


and THREE RIVERS CLIMATE

) 


CONVERGENCE,

) 


) 


Plaintiffs,

) 


v.

)

)

CITY OF PITTSBURGH; LUKE

)

RAVENSTAHL, Mayor, City of

)

Pittsburgh; MICHAEL HUSS,

)

Director of Public Safety,

)

City of Pittsburgh; NATHAN

)

HARPER, Chief, Pittsburgh

)

Bureau of Police; WILLIAM E. )

BOCHTER, Assistant Chief,

)

Pittsburgh Bureau of Police; )

MICHAEL T. RADLEY, Assistant )

Director, Pittsburgh City

)

Parks; OFFICER SELLERS

)

(Badge No. 3602) i OFFICER

)

ERIC KURVACH (Badge No. 3480) )

OFFICERS DOE 1-100,

)

) 


Defendants.

) 


Civil Action No. 09-1275

MEMORANDUM

Gary L. Lancaster, Chief Judge.

This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs, Seeds of Peace Collective ("Seeds of

Peace") and Three Rivers Climate Convergence ("Three Rivers"),

allege that defendants, City of Pittsburgh, Luke Ravenstahl,

Michael Huss, Nathan Harper, William E. Bochter, Michael T. Radley,

officer Sellers, Eric Kurvach, and officers Doe 1 100, violated

their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by interfering

with their ability to freely assemble and demonstrate during the

week of September 20 1 2009 when the International Coal Conference

and the Group of 20 Summit ("G-20 Summit") took place in Pittsburghl Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on September 211 2009 1 four days after this court denied Three Rivers l request for injunctive relief in Codepink Pittsburgh Women for Peace, et al. v. United States Secret Service, et al' l W.D. Pa. docket no. 09-1235 ("Codepinkll ). On December 121 2009 1 plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this case whichl inter alia l eliminated its request for injunctive relief and added a request for punitive damages.
In response 1 defendants filed a motion for partial dismissal of the amended complaint seeking dismissal of: (1) all First Amendment claims as to all defendants 1 and (2) all Fourth Amendment claims as to several of the individual defendants. Defendants primarily argue for dismissal of these claims for failure to raise a legally cognizable claim under Iqbal. In additionl defendants contend the First and Fourth Amendment claims asserted against certain individual governmental official defendants should be dismissed based on qualified immunity or quasi-judicial defenses.
For the reasons that follow 1 we will grant in part and deny in part defendants 1 motion for partial dismissal. I. BACKGROUND
We accept the following material facts as true solely for the purpose of rendering an opinion on the motion to dismiss.
2

From September 20 through 23/ 2009/ and from September 24 through 25, 2009, the International Coal Conference and the G-20 Summit, respectively, took place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. These events took place primarily in the city's downtown area.
Three Rivers wanted to provide a 24-hour-a-day camp demonstrating a sustainable lifestyle from September 20 to 25, 2009. Three Rivers originally wanted to locate the camp in Point State Park (IIPoint Park"), a downtown park. Seeds of Peace wanted to provide food to Three Rivers and other demonstrators, and also serve as a model for sustainable living from september 19 through 26, 2009. Both plaintiffs claim that defendants' actions rendered them unable to demonstrate, silenced their political message about global climate change, and caused them to suffer emotional distress.
Three Rivers alleges that defendants: (1) wrongfully denied it a permit to demonstrate in Point Park; (2) significantly compromised its ability to demonstrate in Schenley Park; (3) wrongfully denied them the right to camp overnight in any city park; and (4) wrongfully confiscated their demonstration items. Seeds of Peace asserts their constitutional rights were violated when defendants: (1) denied them the ability to serve demonstrators food; and (2) precluded their bus from traveling to demonstration destinations.
3 


II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a Rule 12{b) (6) motion, we must be mindful

that federal courts require notice pleading I as opposed to the

heightened standard of fact pleading. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a) (2) requires only "'a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order

to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the

claim is and the

grounds on which it rests.'1t Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 554, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

(1957)) .

To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiff must allege

sufficient facts that, if accepted as true, state "a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 at 570). A claim has facial

plausibility when a plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant may be liable for

the misconduct alleged. . at 1949. However, the court is "'not

bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual

allegation.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.

at 555) i see also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d

Cir. 2009).

Therefore, when deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule

12{b) (6), we apply the following rules. The facts alleged in the

complaint, but not the legal conclusions, must be taken as true and

4

all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of plaintiff. Iqbal 1 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly 1 550 U.S. at 555. We may not dismiss a complaint merely because it appears unlikely or improbable that plaintiff can prove the facts alleged or will ultimately prevail on the merits. Twombly1 550 U.S. at 556 1 563 n. S. Instead l we must ask whether the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary elements. Id. at 556. In short 1 the motion to dismiss should not be granted if plaintiff alleges facts which could l if established at trial l entitle him to relief. Id. at 563 n.S.
It is on this standard that the court has reviewed defendants 1 motion for partial dismissal. Based on the pleadings of record l the court is persuaded that for some of the claims asserted l plaintiffs have alleged facts that "raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the assumption that the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact) . " Twombly 1 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and emphasis omitted) . III. DISCUSSION
A. First Amendment Claims 1. Dismissal of Three Rivers 1 First Amendment Claims Defendants attack the amended complaint under the Iqbal
standard suggesting that plaintiffs failed to plead any legally cognizable First Amendment claims. In support of this contention l defendants rely in part on our preliminary injunction ruling in
5 


Codepink. Codepink Pittsburgh Women for Peace et al. v. United States Secret Service et al., W.D. Pa. docket no. 09-1235. In Codepink, Three Rivers requested a preliminary injunction from this court requiring the City of Pittsburgh to allow overnight camping in Schenley Park.
During the preliminary injunction hearing held on September 17, 2009, this court required Three Rivers to prove that overnight camping in the city's park was expressive conduct under the First Amendment, pursuant to Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 294, n.5 (1984). After receiving and considering evidence presented by the parties, this court determined Three Rivers failed to prove that overnight camping conveyed or expressed any message. We thus held there was no reason to even conduct a First Amendment analysis. (See, Codepink, doc. no. 37, p. 12-13).
Despite this conclusion, we assumed, arguendo, that overnight camping was expressive conduct and applied a First Amendment analysis. This court, again applying Clark, supra, still concluded based on the evidence, the City of Pittsburgh's denial of Three River's request to camp overnight was valid because its denial was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and its restrictions went to the time, place, and manner of Three Rivers demonstrations, not the content of Three River's message. Id.
6

We now hold that our ruling in the Codepink preliminary injunction precludes Three Rivers from reasserting the same First Amendment claim against the City of Pittsburgh in this proceeding. See, McTernan v. City of York, Penn., 577 F.3d 521, 530-31 (3d Cir. 2009) (a district court's findings and conclusions on a preliminary injunction motion can "have preclusive effect if the circumstances make it likely that the findings are \sufficiently firm' to persuade the court that there is no compelling reason for permitting them to be litigated again." (citations omitted)).
In Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted that "findings made in preliminary injunction decisions have preclusive effect if the circumstances make it likely that the findings are \\sufficiently firm" to persuade the court that there is no compelling reason for permitting them to be litigated again." 126 F.3d 461, 474 n.11 (3d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Whether the resolution in the first proceeding is sufficiently firm to merit preclusive effect turns on a variety of factors, including "whether the parties were fully heard, whether the court filed a reasoned opinion, and whether that decision could have been, or actually was appealed." In re Brown, 951 F.2d 564, 569 (3d Cir. 1991) .
We find that the circumstances presented make our prior finding in Codepink sufficiently firm. We specifically note that
7 


the parties were fully heard as to whether overnight camping in a public park was expressive speech under the First Amendment or was
a way to house protestors without lodging. We further note that
this court filed a reasoned opinion and the matter was not appealed.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint and their brief in
opposition to the partial motion to dismiss fail to provide a
compelling reason for the re-litigation of this discrete issue. 1
Accordingly, based on our decision in Codepink, this court will
grant defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Three Rivers' First Amendment claims pertaining to overnight camping.
Defendants also request dismissal of all remaining First
Amendment claims raised by Three Rivers. We categorize these claims
as: (1) defendants' wrongful denial to issue a permit to Three Rivers to demonstrate in Point Park j 2 (2) defendants' actions which
compromised Three Rivers' ability to demonstrate in Schenley Park due to: (a) defendants' delay in issuing a permit, and
1 Although plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges it has "new evidence" tending to prove the City engaged in content-based discrimination when it denied Three Rivers permission to camp overnight, our determination in Codepink was that Three Rivers failed to prove that overnight camping was expressive conduct thereby invoking a First Amendment analysis in the first place.
2 Although much evidence was presented during the Codepink preliminary injunction hearing on the subject of permits I this court's prior opinion did not discuss whether Three Rivers' First Amendment rights were impacted in any way by defendants' actions and inactions with respect to permits.
8

(b) defendants conf iscation of Three Rivers' belongings i and (3) defendants' prevention of Three Rivers' demonstration in Schenley Park on September 24, 2009.
Defendants argue that these First Amendment claims should be dismissed against defendants Ravenstahl, Huss, Harper, Bochter and Radley because plaintiffs' allegations merely claim that these defendants are responsible under a theory of vicarious liability, inapplicable in a Section 1983 lawsuit such as this one. Plaintiffs counter by claiming the amended complaint clearly describes how the individual actions of each of these defendants impaired their First Amendment rights.
Because this lawsuit is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, vicarious liability is inapplicable and plaintiffs must plead that each government official through his own actions violated the Constitution. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948. In addition, the Supreme Court has "emphasized that official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent. Suits against state officials in their official capacity therefore should be treated as suits against the State." Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991) (quotation and citations omitted) .
We find that plaintiffs' allegations with respect to defendants Ravenstahl, Huss, Harper, and Bochter are merely conclusory and lack details concerning the personal involvement of
9 


these individuals. In fact, in the few places where plaintiffs' amended complaint describes actions which infringe on their First Amendment rights, they generically state the actions were taken by "city officials" without specifying which defendant. In the very few instances where defendants Ravenstahl, Huss, Harper, and Bochter are specifically mentioned by name, the allegations set forth against them concern actions that each person would have undertook in his official capacity. (See, i.e., doc no. 15, ~ 47). Under Iqbal, this is insufficient.
However, with respect to defendant Radley, we find that plaintiffs' allegations are adequately pled and do not appear to be predicated on a vicarious liability theory. (See, i.e., doc. no. 15, ~~ 88-96). Accordingly, we will grant defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice with respect to the remaining First Amendment claims enumerated above but only as to defendants Ravenstahl, Huss, Harper, and Bochter.
Defendants alternatively argue that defendant Radley is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. As its name suggests, "quasi-judicial" immunity is a doctrine under which government actors whose acts are relevantly similar to judging are immune from suit. Dotzel v. Ashbridge, 438 F.3d 320, 325 (3d Cir. 2006). "Quasi-judicial absolute immunity attaches when a public official's role is 'functionally comparable' to that of a judge." Id. (citation omitted). Regardless of his job title, if a state
10 


official must walk, talk, and act like a judge as part of his job, then he is as absolutely immune from lawsuits arising out of that walking, talking, and acting as are judges who enjoy the title and other formal indicia of office. Id. (citation omitted) .
Based on the allegations set forth in the amended complaint, there is no basis for a finding of quasi-judicial immunity. (See, i.e., doc. no. 17, ~~ 88-96). Thus, defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim against defendant Radley is denied without prejudice to reassert it at the close of discovery.
Thus, based on the foregoing, Three Rivers is left with a First Amendment claim against defendants City of Pittsburgh, Radley, Sellers, Kurvach, and officers Doe 1-100 with respect to the following discrete issues: (1) defendants' wrongful denial to issue a permit to Three Rivers to demonstrate in Point Park; (2) defendants' actions which compromised Three Rivers' ability to demonstrate in Schenley Park due to: (a) defendants' delay in issuing a permit, and (b) defendants' confiscation of Three Rivers' belongings; and (3) defendants' prevention of Three Rivers' demonstration in Schenley Park on September 24, 2009.
2. Dismissal of Seeds of Peace First Amendment Claims Next, defendants seek a dismissal of the First Amendment claims raised by Seeds of Peace. The amended complaint alleges that Seeds of Peace was precluded from engaging in two separate forms of
11 


allegedly expressive conduct: (1) illustrating a sustainable living concept by displaying its bus at demonstrations in Point Park and Schenley Park; and (2) feeding other demonstrators.
We find the amended complaint meets the Iqbal standard with respect to the bus issue, because it presents facts that, if accepted as true t allow this court to draw the reasonable inference that defendants may be liable for plaintiffs' inability to demonstrate. (See doc. no. 15, ~~ 103-188). Accordingly, we will allow that First Amendment claim to move forward, but only with respect to defendant City of Pittsburgh. We will grant defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amendment claims with respect to defendants Huss, Harper, and Bochter for the same reasons set forth above - namely that plaintiffs' amended complaint asserts only conclusory and vicarious allegations against these defendants. These are insufficient to maintain a Section 1983 action in the face of an Iqbal challenge.
We also find that Seeds of Peace failed to plead a legally cognizable claim under the First Amendment with respect to serving food. In order to ascertain whether serving food is expressive conduct worthy of First Amendment protection, we begin with the two-prong Spence-Johnson test announced by the Supreme Court. See t Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) and Spence v. State of Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974). Through these cases, the Supreme Court determined whether speech is "sufficiently imbued
12 


with elements of communication" by asking "whether' [a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.'" Johnson, 491 U.S. at 404 (quoting Spence, 418 U.S. at 410-11 (1974)). In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), the Court modified this test by eliminating the "particularized message" aspect of it. Id. at 569 70.
Subsequent to Hurley, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that conduct is expressive if, "considering 'the nature of [the] activity, combined with the factual context and environment in which it was undertaken,' we are led to the conclusion that the 'activity was sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.'" Tenafly Eruv Ass'n, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144, 160 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted) .
In Tenafly, the Court of Appeals reasserted that it is incumbent on a plaintiff to establish that he engaged in expressive conduct. The Court stated, " ... as we stressed in Troster, 65 F.3d at 1091-92, and as the Supreme Court held in Clark, \ it is the obligation of the person desiring to engage in assertedly expressive conduct to demonstrate that the First Amendment even applies.' Clark, 468 U.S. at 293 n.5, 104 S.Ct. 3065." 309 F.3d at 161.
13

Like the court in Tenafly, we agree that functionality and expression are not mutually exclusive, but plaintiffs l amended complaint offers no facts indicating how feeding hungry demonstrators communicates or expresses any idea or message. See l id. at 163-64. In this case l plaintiffs' amended complaint repeatedly describes the role of Seeds of Peace as proffering "support ll to individuals and groups who engage in demonstrations by providing and serving them food. (Doc no. 15, ~~ 8-10, 32). Plaintiffs fail to allege facts that would provide the necessary context to illustrate how this "supportll rises to the level of protected speech. Simply put, the amended complaint fails to allege how "supporting" other protestors by serving them food is expressive conduct and therefore, constitutionally protectable communication.
In their brief in opposition to the partial motion to dismiss, plaintiffs contend that G-20 Summit demonstrators would have understood the message being conveyed by Seeds of Peace through its actions of providing and serving food. However, this "messagell has not been adequately I if at all, explained by plaintiffs in their amended complaint. Nor could this "messagell be given any credence given that plaintiffs admit in their amended complaint that the act of preparing and serving food constitutes "support" for other demonstrators. Although conduct can be simultaneously functional and expressive, as in Allegheny County v.
14 


Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), we find that plaintiffs' description of the acts of food preparation and service as "support" fails to sufficiently imbue these acts with the necessary elements of communication so as to fall within the scope of the First Amendment. Further, given plaintiffs' admissions that its food preparation and service acts were done to "support" other protestors, we find that any amendment to the amended complaint would be futile. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation 114 F. 3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997) (" futili ty" means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted) .
Accordingly, upon application of the Iqbal standard, we will grant defendants I motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim pertaining to providing or serving food raised by Seeds of Peace with prejudice.
Thus I based on the foregoing, Seeds of Peace may proceed with its First Amendment claim related to the bus issue, as asserted against defendant City of Pittsburgh.
B. Fourth Amendment Claims Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that their Fourth
Amendment rights were infringed as follows: (1) by defendants Radley and the City of Pittsburgh deliberately seizing Three Rivers' possessions located in Schenley Parkj (2) by defendants Huss, Harper, Bochter and the City of Pittsburgh: (a) illegally
15 


searching the Seeds of Peace bus and refrigeration unit, (b) illegally towing and impounding the Seeds of Peace bus; and (3) illegally detaining of four members of Seeds of Peace for thirty (30) minutes.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims fail to state a cognizable claim against defendants Ravenstahl, HusS, Harper, Bochter and Radley. 3 Defendants additionally argue that the Fourth Amendment claims against defendants Huss, Harper, and Bochter should be dismissed based on the doctrine of qualified immunity while the Fourth Amendment claim against defendant Radley should be dismissed based on quasi-judicial immunity.
As noted above, in a Section 1983 case such as this one, plaintiffs' amended complaint must assert that an individual government official defendant, through his own actions violated the constitution. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. We find, based on the same analysis discussed at III. A. 1., infra., the Fourth Amendment claims plaintiffs asserted against defendants Huss, Harper, and Bochter as individuals must be dismissed. However, plaintiffs have adequately pled a Fourth Amendment claim against defendant Radley in connection with Three Rivers' loss of property. Seeds of Peace may pursue their Fourth Amendment claims pertaining the bus and
3 Plaintiffs' amended complaint does not assert a Fourth Amendment claim against defendant Ravenstahl. We therefore consider defendants' arguments with respect to the Fourth Amendment claims as to defendants Huss, Harper, Bochter and Radley.
16

detention issues against defendants City of Pittsburgh, Sellers, Kurvach and officers Doe 1-100.
An appropriate order follows.
17 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE and THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE,

Plaintiffs, v.

Civil Action No. 09-1275

CITY OF PITTSBURGH; LUKE RAVENSTAHL, Mayor, City of Pittsburgh; MICHAEL HUSS, Director of Public Safety, City of Pittsburgh; NATHAN HARPER, Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police; WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, Assistant Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police; MICHAEL T. RADLEY, Assistant Director, Pittsburgh City Parksj OFFICER SELLERS (Badge No. 3602); OFFICER ERIC KURVACH (Badge No. 3480) OFFICERS DOE 1-100,

Defendants.

ORDER ,*C AND NOW, this ~ day of May, 2010, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion for partial dismissal of Plaintiffs' amended complaint [doc. no. 19] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, without prejudice to raise those matters denied herein in a motion for summary judgment. Based on the memorandum filed contemporaneously with this order, the only claims that are not dismissed are as follows:

18 


Claim 1: First Amendment (Three Rivers v. City of Pittsburgh, Michael T. Radley, officer Sellers, officer Eric Kurvach, and officers Doe 1­ 100)
(1) Denying Three Rivers a permit to demonstrate in Point Park; (2) Compromising Three Rivers ability to demonstrate in Schenley Park due to:
(a) delayed issuance of a permit, and (b) confiscation of Three Rivers' materials; and (3) Preventing Three Rivers from demonstrating in Schenley Park on September 24, 2009.
Claim 2: Fourth Amendment (Three Rivers v. City of Pittsburgh and Michael T. Radley)
Actions compromising Three Rivers' ability to demonstrate in Schenley Park due to confiscated materials.
Claim 3: First Amendment (Seeds of Peace v. City of Pittsburgh)
Actions taken with respect to the Seeds of Peace bus.
Claim 4: Fourth Amendment (Seeds of Peace v. City of Pittsburgh, officer Sellers, officer Eric Kurvach, and officers Doe 1-100)
Actions taken with respect to the Seeds of Peace bus and detention of members of Seeds of Peace.
BY THE COURT:

cc: All Counsel of Record

C. J.

19 


 
 Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 77-1 Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________
No. 10-2765 __________
SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE; THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE
v.
CITY OF PITTSBURGH; LUKE RAVENSTAHL, Mayor of Pittsburgh; MICHAEL HUSS, Director of Public Safety; NATHAN HARPER, Chief of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police; WILLIAM E. BOTCHER, Assistant Chief of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police; MICHAEL T. RADLEY, Assistant Director of Pittsburgh City Parks; OFFICER KEVIN SELLERS (Badge No. 3602); OFFICER ERIC KURVACH (Badge
No. 3480); OFFICERS DOE 1-100;
MICHAEL T. RADLEY, OFFICER KEVIN SELLERS, OFFICER ERICH KURVACH,
Appellants.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D. C. No. 2-09-cv-01275)
District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on March 18, 2011
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 77-1 Filed 12/21/11 Page 2 of 2
JUDGMENT This case came on to be heard on the record before the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and was submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 18, 2011. Upon consideration whereof, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this Court that the order of the District Court entered May 26, 2010, be and the same hereby is vacated in part and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The order is vacated to the extent that it denied the appellants’ motion to dismiss the claims of Three Rivers Climate Convergence against them. Each party to bear its own costs. All of the above in accordance with the Opinion of this Court.
ATTEST: /s/ Marcia M. Waldron Clerk
Dated: November 29, 2011
Certified as a true copy and issued in lieu
of a formal mandate on 12/21/ 2011
Teste: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
2

 
 Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 90 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE and ) CIVIL DIVISION

THREE RIVERS CLIMATE

)

CONVERGENCE,

) No: 09-1275

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Chief U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster

vs.

)

)

CITY OF PITTSBURGH; LUKE

) ELECTRONICALLY FILED

RAVENSTAHL, Mayor City of Pittsburgh; )

MICHAEL HUSS, Director of Public

)

Safety, City of Pittsburgh; NATHAN

)

HARPER, Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of

)

Police; WILLIAM E. BOCHTER,

)

Assistant Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of

)

Police; MICHAEL T. RADLEY, Assistant )

Director, Pittsburgh City Parks; OFFICER )

SELLERS (Badge No: 3602); OFFICER )

ERIC KURVACH (Badge No. 3480)

)

OFFICERS DOE 1-100,

)

)

Defendants. )

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

AND NOW, come all parties, by and through their respective counsel, and, consistent with a Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties, hereby enter into a STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL of all claims of SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE and THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE, against all Defendants, in the above-captioned matter, with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii).

Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 90 Filed 10/12/12 Page 2 of 2

Respectfully submitted,

BY: s/ Witold J. Walczak Witold J. Walczak, Esquire PA ID #62976 Sara Rose, Esquire PA ID #204936 ACLU Foundation of PA 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412 681-7864 vwalczak@aclupgh.org srose@aclupgh.org
Michael J. Healey, Esquire PA ID #27283 Glen S. Downey, Esquire PA ID #209461 Healey & Hornack 436 7th Avenue, Suite 2901 Kopper's Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 391-7711 mike@unionlawyers.net glen@unionlawyers.net
Jon Pushinsky, Esquire PA ID # 30434 1808 Law And Finance Building 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 281-6800
Jules Lobel, Esquire Center for Constitutional Rights 3900 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260 (412) 334-1379 Counsel for Plaintiffs, Seeds of Peace Collective, Three Rivers Climate Convergence
12/1658315.v1

BY:s/ Paul D. Krepps Paul D. Krepps, Esquire PA ID #73038 Teresa O. Sirianni, Esquire PA ID #90472 Michaelene E. Weimer, Esquire PA ID #308869 pdkrepps@mdwcg.com tosirainni@mdwcg.com meweimer@mdwcg.com Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin US Steel Tower, Suite 2900 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 803-1140 (412) 803-1188/fax Counsel for Defendants, Michael T. Radley, Ofc. Sellers, and Ofc. Eric Kurvach
BY: s/ John F. Doherty JOHN F. DOHERTY, ESQUIRE PA ID #56418 DANIEL D. REGAN, ESQUIRE PA ID #89141 john.doherty@city.pittsburgh.pa.us daniel.regan@city.pittsburgh.pa.us City of Pittsburgh Department of Law 313 City-County Building 414 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 255-2016 (412) 255-2285/fax Counsel for Defendant, City of Pittsburgh, only
2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE and

) CIVIL DIVISION

THREE RIVERS CLIMATE

)

CONVERGENCE,

) No: 09-1275

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Chief U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster

vs.

)

)

CITY OF PITTSBURGH; LUKE

) ELECTRON!CALLV FILED

RAVENSTAHL, Mayor City of Pittsburgh; )

MICHAEL HUSS, Director of Public

)

Safety, City ofPittsburgh; NATHAN

)

HARPER, Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of

)

Police; WILLIAM E. BOCHTER,

)

Assistant Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of

)

Police; MICHAEL T. RADLEY, Assistant )

Director, Pittsburgh City Parks; OFFICER )

SELLERS (Badge No: 3602); OFFICER )

ERIC KURV ACH (Badge No. 3480)

)

OFFICERS DOE 1-100,

)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this (2-

/ ) ,f
day of ___f_1!_1;t_-- _____, 2012, upon

consideration of the Stipulation of Dismissal entered by all parties, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED and DECREED that this matter is hereby dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.

12/16583!8.vl

BY THE COURT:
E~c£:~
)2tiefU.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster

 
 Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 1 of 14
U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09−cv−01275−GLL

CLOSED

SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE et al v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster related Case: 2:09−cv−01235−GLL
Case in other court: Third Circuit, 10−02765 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/21/2009 Date Terminated: 09/26/2012 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE

represented by Glen S. Downey Healey &Hornack 436 Seventh Avenue Koppers Building − Suite 2901 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 391−7711 Fax: (412) 281−9509 Email: glen@unionlawyers.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Healey Healey &Hornack 436 Seventh Avenue Koppers Building − Suite 2901 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 391−7711 Email: mike@unionlawyers.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Rose ACLU 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 681−7864 Fax: (412) 681−8707 Email: srose@aclupa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Witold J. Walczak ACLF of PA 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 681−7864 Email: vwalczak@aclupa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MICHAEL BOWERSOX TERMINATED: 12/11/2009

represented by Glen S. Downey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Healey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 2 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE

represented by Glen S. Downey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Healey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE TERMINATED: 12/11/2009

represented by George R. Specter City of Pittsburgh Department of Law 414 Grant Street 313 City−County Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 255−2019 Email: george.specter@city.pittsburgh.pa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John F. Doherty City of Pittsburgh Department of Law 414 Grant Street 313 City−County Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 255−2016 Fax: 412−255−2285 Email: john.doherty@pittsburghpa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E. Kennedy City of Pittsburgh Department of Law 313 City−County Building 414 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 255−2002

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 3 of 14

Email: michael.kennedy@pittsburghpa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul D. Krepps Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &Goggin 600 Grant Street, USX Tower Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 803−1140 Email: pdkrepps@mdwcg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa O. Sirianni Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &Goggin 600 Grant Street, USX Tower Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 803−1140 Email: tosirianni@mdwcg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
OFFICER SELLERS (Badge No. 3602)

represented by Alan E. Johnson Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &Goggin 600 Grant Street, U.S. Steel Tower Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 803−1196 Fax: (412) 803−1188 Email: aejohnson@mdwcg.com TERMINATED: 08/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michaelene E. Weimer Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &Goggin US Steel Tower, Suite 2900 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412 803−1140 Fax: 412 803−1188 Email: meweimer@mdwcg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul D. Krepps (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Magyar Eckert Seamans Cherin &Mellott 600 Grant Street USX Tower 44th Fl Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412−566−6128 Fax: 412−566−6099

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 4 of 14

Email: rmagyar@eckertseamans.com TERMINATED: 02/28/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa O. Sirianni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
OFFICER ERIC KURVACH (Badge No. 3480)

represented by Alan E. Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michaelene E. Weimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul D. Krepps (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Magyar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa O. Sirianni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
OFFICER JOHN DOE 2 (Badge No. 3564) TERMINATED: 12/11/2009

represented by Paul D. Krepps (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa O. Sirianni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
LUKE RAVENSTAHL Mayor, City of Pittsburgh TERMINATED: 10/19/2010

represented by Alan E. Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul D. Krepps (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Magyar (See above for address)

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 5 of 14

TERMINATED: 02/28/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MICHAEL HUSS Director of Public Safety, City of Pittsburgh TERMINATED: 10/19/2010

represented by Alan E. Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul D. Krepps (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Magyar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NATHAN HARPER Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police TERMINATED: 10/19/2010

represented by Alan E. Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul D. Krepps (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Magyar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
WILLIAM E. BOCHTER Assistant Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police TERMINATED: 10/19/2010

represented by Alan E. Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul D. Krepps (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Magyar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MICHAEL T. RADLEY Assistant Director, Pittsburgh City Parks

represented by Alan E. Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 6 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michaelene E. Weimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul D. Krepps (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Magyar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant OFFICERS DOE 1−100

Defendant CITY OF PITTSBURGH

represented by Alan E. Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/06/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel D. Regan City of Pittsburgh Department of Law Room 313 City−County Building 414 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219−2285 (412) 255−2010 Fax: (412) 255−2285 Email: daniel.regan@pittsburghpa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John F. Doherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michaelene E. Weimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul D. Krepps (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca L. Magyar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 7 of 14

09/21/2009
09/21/2009 09/21/2009 09/21/2009
09/21/2009 09/21/2009 09/22/2009
09/22/2009 09/28/2009
10/08/2009 10/09/2009 10/12/2009 10/28/2009

1 COMPLAINT against CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE, OFFICER SELLERS, OFFICER KURVACH, OFFICER JOHN DOE 2 (Filing fee $350, receipt number 1375495), filed by SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, MICHAEL BOWERSOX. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Verifications) (plh) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, MICHAEL BOWERSOX. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Downey, Glen) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
3 BRIEF in Support re 2 Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, MICHAEL BOWERSOX. (Downey, Glen) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER that any response to 2 Motion for TRO and/or for Preliminary Injunction shall be due 9/21/2009 and setting Hearing on Motion for 9/22/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3A before Judge Gary L. Lancaster; Text−only entry; No PDF document will issue; This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (map) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
4 RESPONSE to Motion re 2 Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE. (Kennedy, Michael) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
5 BRIEF in Opposition re 2 Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE. (Kennedy, Michael) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
6 REPLY BRIEF by THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, MICHAEL BOWERSOX re 4 Response to Motion, 5 Brief in Opposition to Motion filed by THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, MICHAEL BOWERSOX. (Downey, Glen) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
7 Minute Entry for Hearing re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction held on 9/22/2009 before Judge Gary L. Lancaster; Motion orally denied for the reasons stated on the record (Court Reporter: Richard Ford). (map) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
8 NOTICE that instant civil action has been designated for placement into the United States District Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program. Parties are directed to fully complete the required 26(f) report, which includes the stipulation of selecting an ADR process. Counsel for plaintiff (or in the case of a removal action, counsel for removing defendant) shall make service of the notice on all parties. (map) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul D. Krepps on behalf of CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE, OFFICER SELLERS, OFFICER KURVACH, OFFICER JOHN DOE 2. (Krepps, Paul) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Teresa O. Sirianni on behalf of CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE, OFFICER SELLERS, OFFICER KURVACH, OFFICER JOHN DOE 2. (Sirianni, Teresa) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
11 ORDER directing that Rule 26 Meeting be conducted on or before 11/3/2009, that Rule 26 Meeting Report be filed by 11/17/2009 and setting INITIAL LOCAL RULE 16.1 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE for 12/3/2009 at 2:00 PM. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 10/12/09. (map) (Entered: 10/12/2009)
12 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on September 22, 2009 before Judge Gary L. Lancaster. Court Reporter Richard Ford, Telephone number (412) 261−0802. The parties have five (5) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 8 of 14

11/02/2009 11/03/2009
11/03/2009 12/11/2009 12/18/2009
12/21/2009 01/15/2010 02/09/2010 02/09/2010 02/10/2010 02/12/2010

Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 11/4/2009. Redaction Request due 11/18/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/30/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/27/2010. (rtf, ) Modified on 10/29/2009. (tt, ) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
13 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Time to file Amended Complaint by THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, MICHAEL BOWERSOX. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Walczak, Witold) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
14 ORDER granting 13 Motion to Extend Time; Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint by 12/11/2009; Any responsive pleading to this Amended Complaint shall be filed by 1/8/2010; Parties shall meet and confer, pursuant to F.R.C.P.26(a), by 1/29/2010; Parties' Rule 26 Meeting Report shall be due by 2/12/2010; Initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference will now be held on 2/19/2010 at 2:30 PM. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 11/3/09. (map) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer to Amended Complaint by defendants CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE, OFFICER SELLERS, OFFICER KURVACH and OFFICER JOHN DOE 2 due 1/8/2010; Rule 26 Meeting to be conducted on or before 1/29/2010. (map) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
15 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE. (Walczak, Witold) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
16 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 15 Amended Complaint filed by THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE by OFFICER SELLERS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, LUKE RAVENSTAHL, MICHAEL HUSS, NATHAN HARPER, WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, CITY OF PITTSBURGH. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Krepps, Paul) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
17 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint shall be filed on or before 2/9/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 12/21/09. (map) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan E. Johnson on behalf of WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL. (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
19 MOTION for Partial Dismissal re 15 Amended Complaint by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
20 BRIEF in Support re 19 Motion for Partial Dismissal, filed by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
21 ORDER directing that any Response to 19 Motion for Partial Dismissal of plaintiffs' Amended Complaint shall be filed by 3/5/2010; Any reply to a response shall be filed by 3/19/2010; Status Conference of 2/19/2010 is re−set to 4/9/2010 at 2:30 PM. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 2/10/10. (map) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
22 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 26(f) Report by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, OFFICERS DOE 1−100, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Krepps, Paul) (Entered: 02/12/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 9 of 14

02/15/2010 02/15/2010 02/26/2010
02/26/2010
02/26/2010 02/26/2010 04/01/2010 04/01/2010 04/09/2010 04/22/2010
04/23/2010 05/02/2010
05/21/2010 05/26/2010

23 ORDER granting 22 Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Rule 26(f) Report; Counsel are directed to file the Rule 26(f) Report in the instant case on or before 2/26/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 2/12/10. (map) (Entered: 02/15/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 2/26/2010. (map) (Entered: 02/15/2010)
24 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION to Dismiss (Motion for Partial Dismissal) re 15 Amended Complaint MOTION to Dismiss (Motion for Partial Dismissal) re 15 Amended Complaint by SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rose, Sara) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
25 ORDER granting 24 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to FileOpposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiffs' Response to 19 MOTION for Partial Dismissal of Amended Complaint shall be due by 4/5/2010; Any Reply to a Response shall be due by 4/19/2010; Status Conference of 4/9/2010 is re−scheduled to 5/20/2010 at 4:30 PM. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 2/26/10. (map) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference re−set to 5/20/2010 at 4:30 PM before Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster. (map) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
26 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Krepps, Paul) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
27 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION to Dismiss (Motion for Partial Dismissal) re 15 Amended Complaint MOTION to Dismiss (Motion for Partial Dismissal) re 15 Amended Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rose, Sara) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
28 ORDER granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 19 Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint; Plaintiffs' response shall now be due by 4/9/2010; Any reply to a response shall now be due by 4/23/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 4/1/10. (map) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
29 BRIEF in Opposition re 19 Motion to Dismiss, filed by SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Rose, Sara) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
30 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 Brief in Opposition to Motion by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
31 ORDER granting 30 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief to Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal of Amended Complaint; Defendants' reply due 5/7/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 4/23/10. (map) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
32 REPLY BRIEF by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL re 29 Brief in Opposition to Motion for Partial Dismissal filed by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL. (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 05/02/2010)
33 Minute Entry for Status Conference held on 5/20/2010 before Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster; Parties to file amended ADR stipulation within 10 days; Discovery to be completed within 120 days (Court Reporter: None). (map) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
34 MEMORANDUM and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, without prejudice to raise those matters denied in a motion for summary judgment; The only claims that are not dismissed are those claims stated more fully in the order. Signed by Chief

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 10 of 14

06/10/2010
06/10/2010
06/11/2010
06/11/2010 06/11/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/25/2010 06/25/2010 07/08/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/21/2010

Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 5/25/10. (map) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
35 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 34 Order on Motion to Dismiss, by OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. Filing fee $455, receipt number 0315−1630263. Motion for IFP N/A. Certificate of Appealability N/A. Court Reporter(s): N/A. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. The Transcript Purchase Order form will NOT be mailed to the parties. The form is available on the Court's internet site. (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
38 STIPULATION selecting ADR process by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, MICHAEL BOWERSOX, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, OFFICER SELLERS, OFFICERS DOE 1−100, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (plh) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
36 NOTICE that instant civil action has been designated for placement into the United States District Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program. Parties are directed to fully complete the required 26(f) report, which includes the stipulation of selecting an ADR process. Counsel for plaintiff (or in the case of a removal action, counsel for removing defendant) shall make service of the notice on all parties. (Walczak, Witold) Modified on 6/11/2010. (plh)This document removed from public view and redocketed at Doc. # 38 . (Entered: 06/11/2010)
37 ANSWER to 15 Amended Complaint by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 36 Notice of ADR Designation. ERROR: Wrong event selected. CORRECTION: Re−docketed as Stipulation Selecting ADR Process. This message is for informational purposes only. (plh) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
39 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Parties shall complete selected ADR mechanism by 7/19/2010; Fact Discovery to end 9/17/2010; Post−Discovery Status Conference set for 10/15/2010 at 2:30 PM. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 6/21/10. (map) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
40 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation and appointing Donald E. Ziegler as mediator. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 6/21/10. (map) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
42 MOTION to Stay re 39 Case Management Order, 35 Notice of Appeal, (Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Qualified Immunity Appeal) by OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
43 BRIEF in Support re 42 Motion to Stay, filed by OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
44 ORDER directing that any Response to 42 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Qualified Immunity Appeal and brief in support shall be filed by 7/23/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 7/8/10. (map) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
45 BRIEF in Opposition re 42 Motion to Stay, Discovery filed by SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Walczak, Witold) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
46 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Time to complete ADR by SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Walczak, Witold) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
47 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Qualified Immunity Appeal by OFFICER

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 11 of 14

07/21/2010 07/26/2010 07/27/2010 07/28/2010 07/29/2010 08/10/2010
09/17/2010
09/18/2010 09/23/2010
10/12/2010 10/12/2010 10/14/2010 10/19/2010

ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
48 Errata re 47 Motion for Leave to File, by OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. Reason for Correction: Earlier filing did not attach proposed Reply Brief. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Reply Brief) (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
49 ORDER granting 47 Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Qualified Immunity Appeal. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 7/26/10. (map) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
50 REPLY BRIEF re 42 Motion to Stay, 45 Brief in Opposition to Motion filed by OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. (Johnson, Alan) Modified on 7/28/2010. (plh) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
51 MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 42 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 7/28/10. (map) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
Motion terminated: 46 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Time to complete ADR rendered moot and terminated; Text−only entry; No PDF document will issue; This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on this matter. (map) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
52 REPORT of Mediation: Case has not been resolved. DONALD E. ZIEGLER terminated. Attorney Donald E. Ziegler terminated. The parties are reminded of their obligation to complete the ADR questionnaire and return same to the Clerk of Court within 5 days of the conclusion of the ADR process. The questionnaire can be accessed at www.pawd.uscourts.gov. Click on the ADR icon. Mediation session was held on 7/29/2010. (map) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
53 Joint MOTION to Continue the Case Management Order by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Krepps, Paul) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
54 ORDER granting 53 Joint Motion to Continue the Discovery Period; Fact Discovery to end 12/17/2010; Post−Discovery Status Conference re−set for 1/7/2011 at 1:30 PM. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 9/17/10. (map) (Entered: 09/18/2010)
55 MOTION to Compel Production of Discovery by SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope 1 (Plaintiffs' 1st discovery request), # 2 Exhibit 2 (8/30/10 Krepps−Walczak emails), # 3 Exhibit 3 (9/13/10 Walczak to Krepps letter), # 4 Exhibit 4 (9/16/10 Krepps−Walczak emails), # 5 Proposed Order) (Walczak, Witold) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
56 STIPULATION to Withdraw 55 MOTION to Compel Production of Discovery by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL. (Krepps, Paul) Modified on 10/13/2010 (jsp). (Entered: 10/12/2010)
57 ORDER granting 56 Stipulation to Withdraw 55 MOTION to Compel Production of Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 10/12/10. (map) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
58 NOTICE of Appearance by Rebecca L. Magyar on behalf of WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL. (Magyar, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
59 MOTION to Correct Docket by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, NATHAN HARPER, MICHAEL HUSS, OFFICER ERIC

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 12 of 14

10/19/2010
12/07/2010 12/14/2010 12/15/2010
12/17/2010 12/21/2010 12/21/2010 02/28/2011 02/28/2011 02/28/2011 02/28/2011
06/14/2011
06/18/2011 08/02/2011

KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, LUKE RAVENSTAHL. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
Motion terminated: 59 MOTION to Correct Docket rendered moot; Defendants NATHAN HARPER, LUKE RAVENSTAHL, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, and WILLIAM E. BOCHTER terminated; Text−only entry; No PDF document will issue; This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on this matter (map) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
60 NOTICE of Service of Offer of Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 68 to Plaintiffs by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY (Krepps, Paul) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
61 MOTION to Consolidate Discovery by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Proposed Order) (Krepps, Paul) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
62 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by WILLIAM E. BOCHTER, MICHAEL BOWERSOX, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, CITY OF PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, OFFICER SELLERS, OFFICERS DOE 1−100, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Walczak, Witold) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
63 BRIEF in Opposition re 61 Motion to Consolidate Discovery filed by SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Rose, Sara) Modified on 12/21/2010. (tt) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
64 ORDER denying 61 Motion to Consolidate Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 12/21/10. (map) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
65 ORDER granting 62 Joint Motion to Continue the Discovery Period; Fact Discovery to end 6/17/2011; Post−Discovery Status Conference re−set for 7/8/2011 at 1:30 PM. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 12/21/10. (map) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
66 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel D. Regan on behalf of CITY OF PITTSBURGH. (Regan, Daniel) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
67 NOTICE of Appearance by John F. Doherty on behalf of CITY OF PITTSBURGH. (Doherty, John) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
68 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. (Weimer, Michaelene) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
69 ORDER granting 68 Motion to Substitute Attorney; Appearance of Attorney Rebecca L. Magyar withdrawn and Appearance of Attorney Michaelene E. Weimer entered on behalf of defendants Ofc. Sellers, Ofc. Kurvach, Michael T. Radley and City of Pittsburgh in the instant action. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 2/28/11. (map) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
70 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rose, Sara) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
71 ORDER granting 70 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; Discovery to end 12/17/2011; Post−Discovery Status Conference re−set for 1/6/2012 at 1:30 PM. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 6/17/11. (map) (Entered: 06/18/2011)
72 STIPULATION for Confidential Litigation Materials by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 13 of 14

08/06/2011 11/29/2011 12/15/2011 12/16/2011 12/21/2011
06/25/2012 06/25/2012
07/23/2012 07/23/2012 07/24/2012 07/31/2012 08/03/2012

CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Rose, Sara) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
73 ORDER granting 72 Stipulation for Confidential Litigation Materials, as stated more fully in order. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 8/5/11. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Confidentiality Agreement). (map) (Entered: 08/06/2011)
74 JUDGMENT OF USCA as to 35 Notice of Appeal, filed by OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH Vacating/Remanding judgment/order of the district court. Mandate will follow. (th3, ) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
75 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rose, Sara) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
76 ORDER granting 75 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; Discovery to end 6/15/2012; Post−Discovery Status Conference re−set to 6/22/2012 at 1:30 PM; THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 12/16/11. (map) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
77 MANDATE of USCA as to 35 Notice of Appeal, filed by OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH. The order of the District Court entered May 26, 2010, be and the same hereby is vacated in part and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The order is vacated to the extent that it denied the appellants motion to dismiss the claims of Three Rivers Climate Convergence against them. Each party to bear its own costs. (Attachments: # 1 Opinion) (mlr3, ) Modified on 1/5/2012. (tt) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
78 Minute Entry for Post−Discovery Status Conference held on 6/22/2012 before Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster; Final Scheduling Order to be issued (Court Reporter: None). (map) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
79 FINAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Any Motion for Summary Judgment, brief in support and all supporting documents, shall be filed 9/21/2012; Any Response to a Motion for Summary Judgment, brief in support and all supporting documents, shall be filed 11/5/2012; Any reply to a response shall be filed by 11/30/2012; Plaintiffs' Pretrial Statement due by 3/22/2013; Defendants' Pretrial Statement due by 4/22/2013; Any Motions in Limine, Proposed Voir Dire and Points for Charge due by 5/7/2013; Responses to any Motions in Limine due by 5/22/2013; Pretrial Conference set for 6/7/2013 at 1:30 PM; Jury Selection and Trial set for 6/17/2013 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 3A. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 6/25/12. (map) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
80 MOTION to Amend/Correct re: 15 Amended Complaint by SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order) (Rose, Sara) Modified on 7/24/2012. (plh) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
81 BRIEF in Support re 80 Motion to Amend/Correct re 15 Amended Complaint filed by SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Rose, Sara) Modified on 7/24/2012. (plh) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 80 Motion to Amend/Correct. ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate document. This message is for informational purposes only. (plh) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
82 MOTION to set a briefing schedule to respond to plaintiffs' motion to amend/correct the complaint and to stay the current briefing schedule for filing of depositive motions by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Krepps, Paul) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
83 ORDER denying 80 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 8/3/12. (map) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

Case: 2:09-cv-01275-GLL As of: 09/17/2013 04:48 PM EDT 14 of 14

08/03/2012 08/06/2012 08/06/2012 09/19/2012 09/19/2012
09/26/2012 10/12/2012 10/12/2012

84 ORDER denying 82 Motion to Set a Briefing Schedule to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint and to Stay the Current Briefing Schedule for Filing of Dispositive Motions. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 8/3/12. (map) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
85 MOTION to Withdraw Alan E. Johnson as Attorney by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Johnson, Alan) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
86 ORDER granting 85 Motion of Attorney Alan E. Johnson to Withdraw his appearance on behalf of the defendants in this action. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 8/6/12. (map) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
87 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, MICHAEL T. RADLEY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Krepps, Paul) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
88 ORDER granting 87 Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Summary Judgment; Any motion for summary judgment, brief in support and all supporting documents, shall be filed on or before 10/22/2012; Responses to any such motion, brief in support, and all supporting documents, shall be due on or before 11/21/2012; Any reply to a response to a motion for summary judgment, shall be due on or before 12/6/2012; In all other aspects, the Court's Final Scheduling Order, dated 6/25/2012, shall remain in full force and effect. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 9/19/12. (map) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
89 ORDER directing Clerk of Court to mark CASE CLOSED pending submission of stipulation of discontinuance for approval by the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 9/26/12. (map) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
90 STIPULATION of Dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OFFICER ERIC KURVACH, OFFICER SELLERS, OFFICERS DOE 1−100, MICHAEL T. RADLEY, SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE, THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Krepps, Paul) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
91 ORDER granting 90 STIPULATION of Dismissal, with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 10/12/12. (map) (Entered: 10/12/2012)