Case: 4:14-cv-01410 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/14/14 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Mustafa Hussein,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) No.

)

County of Saint Louis, Missouri,

)

)

City of Ferguson, Missouri, and

)

)

Ronald K. Replogle, in his official capacity

)

as Superintendent of the Missouri Highway )

Patrol,

)

)

Defendants.

)

4:14-cv-1410

COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION 1. This is civil rights action filed by Mustafa Hussein, an individual who has recorded the interactions of the police and demonstrators on public streets and sidewalks within the City of Ferguson and who would like to do so in the future. He brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge intimidating demands and direct orders (made by Defendants, their officers or agents, or those working in concert with them) that members of the public and media stop recording interactions between the police and the public in Ferguson, Missouri. 2. There are a large number of demonstrators who have taken to the public streets and sidewalks of Ferguson, Missouri, to express their opinions about how local law enforcement officials conduct themselves. Defendants have responded by enforcing policies that result in the confrontation of peaceful protestors with a highly militarized police force. There is great public interest in Defendants’ response, and Plaintiff went to Ferguson on Wednesday, August 13,

1

Case: 4:14-cv-01410 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/14/14 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #: 2

2014, to observe and record what was happening so that it could be shared with the world.

Plaintiff’s recording is available for viewing at:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/13/scenes_from_ferguson_missouri_on_wednes

day_night.html.

3.

Plaintiff asks this court to enjoin the police policy of demanding and ordering

members of the media and public to stop recording the police acting in their official duty on

public streets and sidewalks, declare that the police policy on its face and as-applied violates

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and award nominal damages.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Plaintiff’s

civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States.

5. In addition, this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3)

to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured

by the Constitution of the United States.

6. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in

the County of Saint Louis, Missouri. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

7. Divisional venue is in the Eastern Division because the events leading to the

claim for relief arose in the County of Saint Louis and Defendants County of St. Louis and City

of Ferguson are located in the County of Saint Louis, Missouri. E.D. MO. L.R. 2.07(A)(3),

(B)(1).

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff, Mustafa Hussein, resides in Missouri.

2

Case: 4:14-cv-01410 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/14/14 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #: 3
9. Defendant County of Saint Louis, Missouri, is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri and is participating in and directing law enforcement officers’ confrontation of demonstrators and protestors in Ferguson.
10. Defendant City of Ferguson, Missouri, is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri and is participating in and directing law enforcement officers’ confrontation of demonstrators and protestors in Ferguson.
11. Defendant Ronald K. Replogle is sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol. The Missouri State Highway Patrol is an agency of the State of Missouri and is participating in and directing law enforcement officers’ confrontation of demonstrators and protestors in Ferguson.
12. All actions by Defendants, their officers, employees, or agents, described herein are taken under color of state law.
FACTS 13. On August 9, 2014, a police officer of the City of Ferguson’s police department shot and killed Michael Brown, who was unarmed. 14. Many members of the community have responded with anger at the police. 15. As a result, there have been frequent demonstrations on the public streets and sidewalks of Ferguson. 16. At these demonstrations, protestors are voicing their opinions about such issues of public concern as the relationship between police and the community; the frequency with which police officers shoot unarmed black men; and the militarization of local police forces.
3

Case: 4:14-cv-01410 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/14/14 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #: 4
17. Defendants’ response to the demonstrations has been controversial, including using force, ordering peaceful protestors to disband and evacuate the streets and sidewalks, and ordering protestors and observers to stop documenting and videotaping the demonstrations.
18. There is widespread interest in Defendants’ tactics, which raise questions about whether a military response to the protest is consistent with the values of the United States.
19. In order to document what is occurring on the streets and sidewalks of Ferguson, Plaintiff went to Ferguson on Wednesday, August 13, 2014, to document and record what he could see and hear and to share it with the world.
20. Over a speaker, police officials implementing Defendants’ policy ordered everyone on the street to stop recording.
21. Upon hearing the order, Plaintiff was required to choose between surrendering his First Amendment right to record the action unfolding on the street before him or risking arrest or serious bodily injury inflicted by law enforcement officials if he continued recording and exercising his First Amendment rights.
22. Plaintiff chose to continue recording, putting his liberty and physical safety at serious risk.
23. Plaintiff is aware that, in recent days, other journalists have been arrested while engaging in no unlawful activity, have been fired upon by police with teargas, and their recording equipment has been taken by police.
24. Plaintiff is aware that, in recent days in Ferguson, other members of the public and media have been ordered by law enforcement officials to stop recording.
4

Case: 4:14-cv-01410 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/14/14 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #: 5
25. Plaintiff would like to peacefully observe and record the interactions between the community and law enforcement officials in the future; however, to do so he must risk the infliction of serious physical harm and the loss of his property by law enforcement or arrest.
COUNT I Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution 21. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth here verbatim. 22. Defendants’ policies and actions described herein chill reasonable persons from engaging in activity that is protected by the First Amendment. 23. Defendants have deprived, and continue to deprive, Plaintiff of his rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which are incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants’ policy of ordering members of the media and public not to record on the public streets and sidewalks of Ferguson is the cause-in-fact of the constitutional violations. 24. Upon information and belief, unless restrained by this court, Defendants will continue to enforce their policy of ordering members of the media and public to not document and record their actions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief: A. Upon proper motion, issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction prohibiting Defendants, their officers, employees, or agents, and those acting on their behalf or in concert with them from continuing the policy of ordering members of the media or the public to not record on the streets and sidewalks of Ferguson;
5

Case: 4:14-cv-01410 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/14/14 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #: 6
B. Enter declaratory judgment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Defendants’ policy violates the Constitution;
C. Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their officers, employees, or agents, and those acting on their behalf or in concert with them from continuing the policy of ordering members of the media or the public to not document or record on the streets and sidewalks of Ferguson;
D. Award Plaintiff nominal damages; E. Award Plaintiff costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988 or any other applicable law; and F. Allow to Plaintiff such other and further relief as is just and proper under the
circumstances. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert ANTHONY E. ROTHERT, #44827MO GRANT R. DOTY, #60788MO AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, Missouri 63108 Telephone: (314) 652-3114 Facsimile: (314) 652-3112 GILLIAN R. WILCOX, #61278MO AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 3601 Main Street Kansas City, Missouri 64111 Telephone: (816) 470-9938 Facsimile: (314) 652-3112
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
6

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 7 Filed: 08/15/14 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MUSTAFA HUSSEIN, Plaintiff,
V.
COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) No. 4:14-CV-1410-JAR ) ) ) ) ) )

AGREEMENT

Parties acknowledge and agree that the media and members of the public have a right to

record public events without abridgement unless it obstructs the activity or threatens the safety of

others, or physically interferes with the ability of law enforcement officers to perform their

@fb;:C.,. 3Cf~q 3M o
City of Ferguson, Missouri
Dated this I S'JJ{ day of August, 2014.

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 38 Filed: 11/21/14 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 354

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Mustafa Hussein,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) No.

)

County of Saint Louis, Missouri, et al,

)

)

Defendants.

)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ORDER

4:14-cv-1410-JAR

This matter comes before the Court on the joint motion of Plaintiff and Defendant Ronald

K. Replogle, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

Plaintiff and Defendant Replogle, having stipulated and consented to the relief set forth below,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Replogle, his successors, officers, agents,

servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons under their supervision, or within their control,

are permanently enjoined from enforcing a policy or custom of interfering with individuals who

are photographing or recording at public places but who are not threatening the safety of others

or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order resolves all claims asserted by Plaintiff in

the First Amended Complaint against Defendant Replogle and, thus, he is terminated from this

case.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this order. Dated thi1~/-c~:Iafy of November, 2014.

A. ROSS ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 39 Filed: 11/21/14 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 355

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Mustafa Hussein,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) No.

)

County of Saint Louis, Missouri,

)

)

City of Ferguson, Missouri, and

)

)

Ronald K. Replogle, in his official capacity

)

as Superintendent of the Missouri Highway )

Patrol,

)

)

Defendants.

)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4: 14-cv-1410-JAR

ORDER BY CONSENT

Upon motion of Plaintiff and Defendant City of Ferguson, Missouri, the Court enters the

following Order by consent:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant the City of Ferguson, Missouri, its officers,

employees, or agents, and those acting on its behalf, shall not enforce or threaten to enforce any

rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officers the authority or discretion to arrest,

threaten to arrest, or interfere with any individual, including any member of the media or

member of the public photographing or recording in public places unless that person is

threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to

perform their duties.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order grants the full extent of relief to be

afforded Plaintiff herein against the City of Ferguson, and any and all other claims set forth in

Plaintiffs Amended Complaint against the City of Ferguson are hereby dismissed.

Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 39 Filed: 11/21/14 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 356 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November~~4.
A.ROSS TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 40 Filed: 11/21/14 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 357

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Mustafa Hussein,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) No.

)

County of Saint Louis, Missouri, et al,

)

)

Defendants.

)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ORDER

4:14-cv-1410-JAR

This matter comes before the Court on the joint motion of Plaintiff and Defendant County

of St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff and Defendant County of St. Louis, Missouri, having stipulated

and consented to the relief set forth below,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant County of St. Louis, Missouri, its officers,

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons under their supervision, or within their

control, are permanently enjoined from interfering with individuals who are photographing or

recording at public places but who are not threatening the safety of others or physically

interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order resolves all claims asserted by Plaintiff in

the First Amended Complaint against Defendant County of St. Louis, Missouri and, thus, County

of St. Louis, Missouri, is terminated from this case.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this order.

thi~~ Dated

ofNovember, 2014.

H A.ROSS ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 30 Filed: 11/12/14 Page: 1 of 9 PageID #: 116

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Mustafa Hussein,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) No.

)

County of Saint Louis, Missouri,

)

)

City of Ferguson, Missouri, and

)

)

Ronald K. Replogle, in his official capacity

)

as Superintendent of the Missouri Highway )

Patrol,

)

)

Defendants.

)

4:14-cv-1410-JAR

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
1. This is civil rights action filed by Mustafa Hussein, an individual who has recorded the interactions of the police and demonstrators on public streets and sidewalks within the City of Ferguson and who would like to do so in the future. He brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge Defendants’ policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement.
2. There are a large number of demonstrators who have taken to the public streets and sidewalks of Ferguson, Missouri, to express their opinions about how local law enforcement officials conduct themselves. Defendants have responded by enforcing policies that result in the confrontation of peaceful protesters with a highly militarized police force. There is great public interest in Defendants’ response to demonstrators, and Plaintiff, like many other journalists, has

1

Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 30 Filed: 11/12/14 Page: 2 of 9 PageID #: 117

gone to Ferguson, and will continue to go to Ferguson, to observe and record so that his

observations and documentation of the events unfolding can be shared with the world.

3.

Plaintiff asks this court to enjoin the policy or custom of interfering with

individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or

threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement, declare that the

policy or custom on its face and as-applied violates Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and award

nominal damages.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Plaintiff’s

civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States.

5. In addition, this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3)

to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured

by the Constitution of the United States.

6. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in

the County of Saint Louis, Missouri. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

7. Divisional venue is in the Eastern Division because the events leading to the

claim for relief arose in the County of Saint Louis and Defendants County of St. Louis and City

of Ferguson are located in the County of Saint Louis, Missouri. E.D. MO. L.R. 2.07(A)(1),

(B)(2).

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff, Mustafa Hussein, resides in Missouri.

2

Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 30 Filed: 11/12/14 Page: 3 of 9 PageID #: 118
9. Defendant County of Saint Louis, Missouri, is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri that has participated in directing law enforcement officers’ confrontation of members of the media, demonstrators, and protesters in Ferguson and will do so in the future.
10. Defendant City of Ferguson, Missouri, is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri that has participated in directing law enforcement officers’ confrontation of members of the media, demonstrators, and protesters in Ferguson and will do so in the future.
11. Defendant Ronald K. Replogle is sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol. The Missouri State Highway Patrol is an agency of the State of Missouri that has participated in directing law enforcement officers’ confrontation of members of the media, demonstrators, and protesters in Ferguson and will do so in the future.
12. All actions by Defendants, their officers, employees, or agents, described herein are taken under color of state law.
FACTS 13. On August 9, 2014, a police officer of the City of Ferguson’s police department shot and killed Michael Brown, who was unarmed. 14. Many members of the community responded with anger toward the police. 15. As a result, there have been frequent demonstrations on the public streets and sidewalks of Ferguson. 16. At these demonstrations, protesters are voicing their opinions about such issues of public concern as the relationship between police and the community; the frequency with which police officers shoot unarmed black men; and the militarization of local police forces. 17. Defendants’ response to the demonstrations has been controversial, including using force, ordering peaceful protesters to disband and evacuate the streets and sidewalks,
3

Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 30 Filed: 11/12/14 Page: 4 of 9 PageID #: 119
ordering members of the media to leave areas where protesters are gathered, and ordering members of the media, protesters, and observers to stop documenting and videotaping the demonstrations.
18. There is widespread interest in Defendants’ policies and tactics, which raise questions about, among other things, whether a militarized response to the protests is consistent with the values of the United States.
19. In order to document what is occurring on the public streets and sidewalks of Ferguson, Plaintiff went to Ferguson beginning on August 13, 2014, to document and record what he could see and hear in order to share it with the world.
20. On August 13, 2014, over a speaker, police officials implementing Defendants’ policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement ordered everyone on the street to stop recording.
21. Upon hearing the order, Plaintiff was required to choose between surrendering his First Amendment right to record the events unfolding on the street before him or risk arrest or serious bodily injury inflicted by law enforcement officials if he continued recording and exercising his First Amendment rights.
22. Plaintiff chose to continue recording, putting his liberty and physical safety at serious risk.
23. Plaintiff is aware that the policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement has been enforced against other journalists and members of the public. Enforcement methods have included arresting and
4

Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 30 Filed: 11/12/14 Page: 5 of 9 PageID #: 120
threatening with arrest individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not engaging in any unlawful activity, firing upon such individuals with teargas, seizing their recording and photography equipment, ordering individuals to keep moving at all times on public sidewalks, and forbidding their presence on public streets and sidewalks.
24. Plaintiff is aware that members of the public and media have been ordered by law enforcement officials to stop recording and have been subjected to threats and use of force by Defendants’ officers that either limit or remove completely the ability to document events in Ferguson.
25. Plaintiff would like to continue to peacefully observe and record the protests and the interactions between the community members and law enforcement officials in the future; however, to do so he must risk the infliction of serious physical harm, arrest, and the loss of his property.
COUNT I Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution 21. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth here verbatim. 22. Defendants’ policies or customs described herein chill reasonable persons from engaging in activity that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment. 23. Defendants have deprived, and continue to deprive, Plaintiff of his rights under the First Amendment. Defendants’ policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety
5

Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 30 Filed: 11/12/14 Page: 6 of 9 PageID #: 121
of others or physically interfering with law enforcement is the cause-in-fact of the constitutional violations.
24. Upon information and belief, unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to enforce the policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement.
COUNT II Violation of Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 30. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth here verbatim. 31. Plaintiff is aware of no law that permits Defendants’ policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement. 32. The policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibited and authorizes and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. 33. Enforcement of the policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement is arbitrary. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:
6

Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 30 Filed: 11/12/14 Page: 7 of 9 PageID #: 122
A. Upon proper motion, issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants, their officers, employees, or agents, and those acting on their behalf or in concert with them from continuing the policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement;
B. Enter declaratory judgment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Defendants’ policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement violates the Constitution;
C. Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their officers, employees, or agents, and those acting on their behalf or in concert with them from continuing the policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement;
D. Award Plaintiff nominal damages; E. Award Plaintiff’s costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1988 or any other applicable law; and F. Allow to Plaintiff such other and further relief as is just and proper under the
circumstances.
7

Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 30 Filed: 11/12/14 Page: 8 of 9 PageID #: 123
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Anthony E. Rothert ANTHONY E. ROTHERT, #44827MO GRANT R. DOTY, #60788MO AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, Missouri 63108 Telephone: (314) 652-3114 Facsimile: (314) 652-3112 GILLIAN R. WILCOX, #61278MO AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 3601 Main Street Kansas City, Missouri 64111 Telephone: (816) 470-9938 Facsimile: (314) 652-3112 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
8

Case: 4:14-cv-01410-JAR Doc. #: 30 Filed: 11/12/14 Page: 9 of 9 PageID #: 124 Certificate of Service
I certify that a copy of the forgoing was filed electronically with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and made available to counsel of record on November 12, 2014.
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert
9

 
 Case: 4:14-cv-1410 As of: 11/24/2014 01:04 PM CST 1 of 5
CLOSED,TRCK2
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:14−cv−01410−JAR

Hussein v. St. Louis, Missouri, County of. et al Assigned to: District Judge John A. Ross Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein

Date Filed: 08/14/2014 Date Terminated: 11/21/2014 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Anthony E. Rothert AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, MO 63108 314−669−3420 Fax: 314−652−3112 Email: trothert@aclu−mo.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J. McNulty ACLU OF MISSOURI 454 Whittier St St. Louis, MO 63108 847−385−8062 Email: andrew.joseph.mcnulty@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gillian R. Wilcox ACLU OF MISSOURI 3601 Main St. Kansas City, MO 64111 Email: gwilcox@aclu−mo.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant R. Doty AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, MO 63108 314−669−3422 Fax: 314−652−3112 Email: gdoty@aclu−mo.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
St. Louis, Missouri, County of TERMINATED: 11/21/2014

represented by Michael A. Shuman ST. LOUIS COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE 41 S. Central Avenue Clayton, MO 63105 314−615−7042 Fax: 314−615−3732 Email: michael_shuman@stlouisco.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:14-cv-1410 As of: 11/24/2014 01:04 PM CST 2 of 5

Defendant Ferguson, Missouri, City of TERMINATED: 11/21/2014
Defendant Ronald K. Replogle in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol TERMINATED: 11/21/2014

represented by Stephanie E. Karr CURTIS HEINZ GARRETT &O'KEEFE 130 S. Bemiston Avenue Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63105−1951 314−725−8788 Fax: 314−725−8789 Email: skarr@lawfirmemail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James R. Layton ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI Assistant Attorney General 221 W. High Street P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102−0899 573−751−3321 Fax: 573−751−0774 Email: James.Layton@ago.mo.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Isaacson ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI Old Post Office Building P.O. Box 861 St. Louis, MO 63188 314−340−7861 Fax: 314−340−7029 Email: robert.isaacson@ago.mo.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/14/2014
08/14/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendant City of Ferguson, Missouri,, County of Saint Louis, Missouri, Ronald K. Replogle with receipt number 0865−4450503, in the amount of $400 Non−Jury Demand,, filed by Mustafa Hussein. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Original Filing Form, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons)(Rothert, Anthony) (Attachment 1 replaced on 8/15/2014) (DLT). (Attachment 2 replaced on 8/15/2014) (DLT). (Entered: 08/14/2014)
2 NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein Process Server: Brian Lilley (Rothert, Anthony) (Main Document 2 replaced on 8/15/2014) (DLT). (Entered: 08/14/2014)
Case Opening Notification: Judge Assigned: U.S. District Judge John A. Ross. (DLT). (Entered: 08/15/2014)
3 3 Summons Issued as to defendants Ferguson, Missouri, City of, Ronald K. Replogle, St. Louis, Missouri, County of. The summons were emailed to trothert@aclu−mo.org. (DLT) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
4 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
5 NOTICE of Filing Exhibit with the Clerk's Office in paper format by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein re 4 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/15/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-1410 As of: 11/24/2014 01:04 PM CST 3 of 5

08/15/2014
08/15/2014
08/15/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014
08/15/2014 08/18/2014 08/18/2014 09/03/2014 09/03/2014 09/04/2014 09/04/2014 09/08/2014 09/09/2014 09/12/2014 09/12/2014 09/30/2014 10/07/2014 10/14/2014

6 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 4 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Attachments: # 1 Department of Justice Letter re Constitutionality of Filming Police in Public)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
7 AGREEMENT: Parties acknowledge and agree that the media and members of thepublic have a right to record public events without abridgement unless it obstructs the activity or threatens the safety of others, or physically interferes with the ability of law enforcement officers to perform their duties. (Signed by all Parties) (ARL) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
***REMARK − Please note Copy of Agreement was distributed to all parties in courtroom. (ARL) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
8 ORAL MOTION to Withdraw Temporary Restraining Order made by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (ARL) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
9 ORDER: On his oral motion, Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 8/15/14. (ARL) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
12 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge John A. Ross: Motion Hearing held on 8/15/2014 re 4 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Mustafa Hussein. (FTR Gold Operator initials:ARL.) (FTR Gold: Yes.) (ARL) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
13 EXHIBIT Received: Exhibit 1 by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein.(DVD exhibit maintained by Clerk's Office) (ARL) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Mustafa Hussein. Ferguson, Missouri, City of served on 6/18/2014, answer due 7/9/2014. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Mustafa Hussein. St. Louis, Missouri, County of served on 8/15/2014, answer due 9/5/2014. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
14 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by St. Louis, Missouri, County of.(Shuman, Michael) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
15 ENTRY of Appearance by Michael A. Shuman for Defendant St. Louis, Missouri, County of. (Shuman, Michael) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
16 ENTRY of Appearance by Stephanie E. Karr for Defendant Ferguson, Missouri, City of. (Karr, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
17 Defendant City of Ferguson, Missouri ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Ferguson, Missouri, City of.(Karr, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
18 ENTRY of Appearance by Grant R. Doty for Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Doty, Grant) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
19 ENTRY of Appearance by Gillian R. Wilcox for Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Wilcox, Gillian) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
20 ENTRY of Appearance by James R. Layton for Defendant Ronald K. Replogle. (Layton, James) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
21 ENTRY of Appearance by Robert J. Isaacson for Defendant Ronald K. Replogle. (Isaacson, Robert) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
22 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Ronald K. Replogle.(Isaacson, Robert) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
23 ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 10/14/2014 03:00 PM in Chambers before District Judge John A. Ross. The Court will initiate the call with counsel.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/714. (LGK) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
24 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to meet and confer on the following:...SEE ORDER...IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that

Case: 4:14-cv-1410 As of: 11/24/2014 01:04 PM CST 4 of 5

10/23/2014 10/27/2014
11/12/2014 11/12/2014 11/12/2014
11/12/2014 11/14/2014 11/14/2014
11/18/2014 11/20/2014 11/20/2014 11/20/2014
11/21/2014 11/21/2014

counsel shall file with the Clerk of the Court a joint proposed scheduling plan no later than Friday, October 24, 2014, at which time the Court will enter a Case Management Order in the case. The parties joint proposed scheduling plan shall include:...SEE ORDER.... Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/14/14. (LGK) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
25 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. and all Defendants. (Doty, Grant) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
26 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER This case is assigned to Track: 2 Motion to Join Parties due by 12/19/2014. Discovery Completion due by 5/8/2015. ADR Future Reference 12/15/2014. Dispositive Motions due by 6/12/2015. Jury Trial set for 11/9/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12N before District Judge John A. Ross. Motion in Limine due by 10/26/2015. SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/27/14. (JWD) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
27 MOTION for Leave to file first amended complaint by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Complaint)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
28 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 27 MOTION for Leave to file first amended complaint filed by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
29 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 27 MOTION for Leave to file first amended complaint by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Complaint) ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 11/12/14. (JWD) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
30 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants Amendment to 1 Complaint, filed by Mustafa Hussein. Related document: 1 Complaint, filed by Mustafa Hussein.(JWD) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
31 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
32 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 31 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
33 ANSWER to 30 Amended Complaint by St. Louis, Missouri, County of.(Shuman, Michael) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
34 ENTRY of Appearance by Andrew J. McNulty for Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (McNulty, Andrew) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
35 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment (Joint Motion of Plaintiff and Defendant Ronald K. Replogle ONLY) by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
36 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment (Joint Motion of Plaintiff and Defendant City of Ferguson, Missouri, only) by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
37 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment of plaintiff and defendant st. louis county by Plaintiff Mustafa Hussein. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
38 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Replogle, his successors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons under their supervision, or within their control, are permanently enjoined from enforcing a policy or custom of interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order resolves all claims asserted by Plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint against Defendant Replogle and, thus, he

Case: 4:14-cv-1410 As of: 11/24/2014 01:04 PM CST 5 of 5

11/21/2014 11/21/2014

is terminated from this case. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this order. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 11/21/14. (LGK) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
39 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant the City of Ferguson, Missouri, its officers, employees, or agents, and those acting on its behalf, shall not enforce or threaten to enforce any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officers the authority or discretion to arrest, threaten to arrest, or interfere with any individual, including any member of the media or member of the public photographing or recording in public places unless that person is threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order grants the full extent of relief to be afforded Plaintiff herein against the City of Ferguson, and any and all other claims set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint against the City of Ferguson are hereby dismissed. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this order. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 11/21/14. (LGK) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
40 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant County of St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons under their supervision, or within their control, are permanently enjoined from interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order resolves all claims asserted by Plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint against Defendant County of St. Louis, Missouri and, thus, County of St. Louis, Missouri, is terminated from this case. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this order. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 11/21/14. (LGK) (Entered: 11/21/2014)