Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03716/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03716-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3716

___________

Harlan L. Jacobsen, doing business as *

Country Singles, Single Scene, and *

Jacobsen Distribution, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Department of Transportation; State of *

Iowa; Steven F. McMenamin, Rest * [PUBLISHED]

Area Administrator, in that capacity and *

as an individual; Will Zitterich, Office *

of Maintenance, DOT, in that capacity *

and as an individual; Thomas J. *

Vilsack, Governor, in that capacity and *

as an individual; Mark Hunacek, as an *

individual, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2006

Filed: May 15, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-3716 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2006 Entry ID: 2044650
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

Harlan Jacobsen challenges the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment, and the court’s denial of reconsideration, in Jacobsen’s suit alleging that

defendants’ policies relating to placement of his newspaper vending machines at Iowa

highway rest areas violated the First Amendment. Named as defendants were the

Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT), Iowa Rest Area Administrator Steven F.

McMenamin, Will Zitterich of the IDOT Office of Maintenance, Iowa Governor

Thomas J. Vilsack, and Assistant Iowa Attorney General Mark Hunacek. We affirm.

Upon de novo review, see Owens v. Scott County Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1026

(8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that Jacobsen’s claims

against Governor Vilsack and Attorney Hunacek fail: he failed to rebut defendants’

evidence that neither of these defendants had anything to do with IDOT’s newsrack

policy, and as to the Governor, there was no evidence to suggest that supervisory

liability applied. See Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628, 635 (8th Cir. 2001)

(supervisory liability); Gordon v. Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir. 1999) (per

curiam) (§ 1983 requires causal connection between defendant’s conduct and

plaintiff’s constitutional deprivation).

Further, we agree with the district court that the claim against IDOT, and the

official-capacity claims against McMenamin and Zitterich, fail on immunity grounds.

See Robb v. Hungerbeeler, 370 F.3d 735, 739 (8th Cir. 2004) (official-capacity suit

is treated as suit against government entity), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1054 (2005); Doe

v. Nebraska, 345 F.3d 593, 597 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eleventh Amendment provides states

and state agencies with immunity from suits). 

The individual-capacity claims against McMenamin and Zitterich and claims

for injunctive relief also fail, because Jacobsen’s First Amendment rights were not

Appellate Case: 04-3716 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2006 Entry ID: 2044650
-3-

violated. Specifically, based on the present record, we agree with the district court

that the perimeter sidewalks at Iowa highway rest areas are nonpublic fora. See

Jacobsen v. Bonine, 123 F.3d 1272, 1273-74 (9th Cir. 1997) (perimeter walkways at

highway rest stops are nonpublic fora); Sentinel Commc’ns Co. v. Watts, 936 F.2d

1189, 1203 (11th Cir. 1991) (same). Accordingly, any government-imposed

restrictions need only be reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely

because of opposition to the speaker’s views. See Jacobsen v. Howard, 109 F.3d

1268, 1272 (8th Cir. 1997). There is no evidence from which a jury could conclude

that defendants’ placement of Jacobsen’s newsracks was anything other than contentand viewpoint-neutral, and reasonably tailored to meet the governmental interests in

pedestrian safety and access. We also find that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying reconsideration. See Mathenia v. Delo, 99 F.3d 1476, 1480-82

(8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1123 (1997). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3716 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/15/2006 Entry ID: 2044650