2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-14-2008 

# Ol a s z v . W el sh P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-3248

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ol as z v . W e l sh" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 372. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/372NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 3248

____________ R IC H A R D O L A S Z , S R ., A ppel l ant

v. W I LLI AM F. W ELSH; FRAN K D I ENER ; DA VI D H AI NES

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 00348) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember 29, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R , C H A G A R E S a n d W E IS , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: O ct ober14, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antR i char d O l as z, Sr . , appea l s t he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o A ppel l ee W i l l i am F . W el s h on O l as z’ s 42 U . S. C . § 1983 m al i ci ous prosecuti on cl ai m . T he D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd t hat O l asz di d n ot dem on strat e a F i rs t2

A m endment vi ol at i on and ther efor e coul d nots us t ai n a cl ai m form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on p u r s u a n tt o § 1 9 8 3 . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s e tf o r t h b e l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl yt hos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. D ur i ng al l r el evantt i m es , O l as z w as a mem berand W el s h w as the pr es i dentof t he W es tM i ffl i n B or ough C ounci l . A tB or ough C ounci l m eet i ngs on M ar ch 16, 2004 and M ay18, 2004, W el s h rul ed thatO l as z w as outof or derand eve ntual l yi ns t ruct ed the pol i ce t o r emove hi m fr om t he meet i ngs . T her eaf t er , cr i m i nal compl ai nt s w er e fi l ed agai ns tO l as z forhi s behavi oratt he meet i ngs , butan A l l eghenyC ount yD i s t r i ct M agi s t r at e di s m i s s ed al l char ges . O l as z i ni t i at ed a mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on s ui tunder § 1983 al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of hi s Fi r s tA m endment r i ght s t o fr ee s peec h and fr ee as s embl y . O l as z al l eged thatW el s h “w oul d r egul ar l yand w r ongful l yrul e that[O l as z] w a s ‘o u t o f

o rd e r’” in v io latio n o f

h is F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. O las z a d m itt e d to s peaki ng outatt he B or ough C ounci l m eet i ngs , and i n fac t“s peak[ i ng] l oudl yw hi l e bei ng gavel ed” byW el s h, buthe ave r r ed thathi s behavi orw as nece s s aryi n or dert o be hea r d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entas t o O l as z’ s Fi r s tA m endment cl ai m s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ecogni zed the governm ent ’ s l i m i t ed pow ert o r es t r i cts peec h on publ i c pr oper t y , butal s o not ed the perm i s s i bi l i t yof cont ent - r el at ed r egul at i on under3

cert ai n ci r cumst ance s , pr ovi ded the r egul at i on r emai ns vi ew poi ntneutr al . T ur ni ng t o t he fac t s of thi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatO l as z “w as cal l ed outof or derforbei ng di s rupt i ve and/ ornotaddr es s i ng agenda i t ems, ” and thatr es t r i ct i ng s uch beha vi or cons t i tut es an appr opr i at e t i m e, pl ace , and mannerr egul at i on of a publ i c forum . T he D i s t r i ctC our tquot ed E i chenlaub v. Tow ns hi p of I ndi ana , 3 8 5 F . 3 d 2 7 4 , 2 8 1 (3d C ir . 2004) , fort he pr opos i t i on t hata ce r t ai n degr ee of r egul at i on of s peec h atpubl i c meet i ngs i s nece s s aryt o avoi d “al l ow [i ng] a s peake rt o t r yt o hi j ack the pr ocee di ngs , ort o fi l i bus t er t hem, [w hi ch] w oul d i m pi nge on the Fi r s tA m endment r i ght s of otherw oul d- be par t i ci pant s . ” B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatO l as z coul d notes t abl i s h an under l y i ng Fi r s tA m endment vi ol at i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatO l as z’ s § 1983 m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n claim m u st fail . O lasz ti m elyap p ea led th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of a d is tr ic t c o u rt o rd e r g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. Merkl e v. U pperD ubl i n Sch. D ist. , 211 F. 3d 782, 788 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng T o rr e s v . M

cL a u g h lin , 163 F. 3d 169, 170 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ) . Sum m aryj udgm entm aybe gr ant ed w her e “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac t , ” and “ t he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . I n anal y zi ng a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , t he fa ct s m us tbe v iew ed in a ligh t m o st fav o rab le t o the n o n m o v an t and the n o n m o v an t i s en ti tl ed to ev ery4

re a s o n a b le in f

e re n c e th a t c a n b e d ra w n f ro m th e re c o rd . Me rk le , 211 F. 3d at788 ( ci t i ng H am i l t on v. Leavy , 1 1 7 F . 3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 )). III . I n Me rk le , w e expl ai ned that“a c l ai m of m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on unders ect i on 1983 cannotbe bas ed on s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cons i der at i ons , buti ns t ead mustbe bas ed on a pr ovi s i on of the B i l l of R i ght s pr ovi di ng ‘ an expl i ci tt extual s our ce of cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i on. ’ ” 211 F. 3d at792 ( quot i ng A l br ightv. O l i ver , 5 1 0 U .S . 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (1 9 9 4 )) . E xpandi ng ouri nt erpr et at i on of A l br ight , i n Torr es w e s t at ed that“a s ect i on 1983 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m coul d be bas ed on a c ons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on ot hert han the F ou rth A m end m ent, i ncludi ng t he p rocedu ral com po nen tof the D ue P rocess C l ause, so l ong as i tw as notbas ed on s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s . ” 163 F. 3d at173. T hus , ourcas el aw cl ear l yes t abl i s hes t hatt he ana l y s i s of a mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m ar i s i ng under§ 1983 m ustbeg i n w i t h a d et erm i nati on of w hethera con st i tuti on al viol at i on exis t s. I n t he pr es entcas e, O l as z al l eges a vi ol at i on of hi s Fi r s tA m endment r i ghtt o fr ee s peec h. W e have not ed i n pr i orcas es t hat“w hen a publ i c off i ci al excl udes a [s i c] el ect ed r epr es ent at i ve orci t i zen f r om a publ i c meet i ng, s he mustconform herconductt o t he r equi r ement s of the Fi r s tA m endment . ” Mo n tier o v . C ity o f E liza b e th , 436 F. 3d 397, 404 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng E i chenlaub , 385 F. 3d at281) . W hi l e “c ont ent - bas ed r es t r i ct i ons on s peec h i n a publ i c forum ar e s ubj ectt o s t r i ct - s crut i ny , ” Mon t i ero , 4 3 6 F . 3 d a t4 0 4 , we have de t er m i ned that“undercont empora r ypubl i c forum j ur i s prudence , a des i gnat ed ( as5

o p p o se d to tra d iti o n a l) f o ru m is re v iew e d u n d e r a slid in g sta n d a rd th a t allo w s f o r c o n ten tr el at ed r egul at i on s o l ong as t he cont enti s t i ed t o t he l i m i t at i ons t hatfr ame t he s cope of t he des i gnat i on, and s o l ong as t he r egul at i on i s neutr al as t o vi ew poi ntw i t hi n t he s ubj ect m at t erof thatcont ent . ” E i chenlaub , 385 F. 3d at281. “V i ew poi nt - bas ed r es t r i ct i ons vi ol at e the Fi r s tA m endment r egar dl es s of w hethert heyal s o s er ve s om e val i d t i m e, pl ace , m anneri nt er es t . ” Mon t i ero , 436 F. 3d at404. I n E i chenlaub , w e cons i der ed w hethera pl ai nt i ff i n a § 1983 s ui tes t abl i s hed a vi ol at i on of hi s Fi r s tA m endment pet i t i on and fr ee s peec h r i ght s bas ed on the curt ai l m ent of hi s s peec h dur i ng a publ i c meet i ng and hi s r emoval fr om t he meet i ng. 385 F. 3d at 279- 81. T o anal y ze the Fi r s tA m endment cl ai m , w e addr es s ed the i s s ue of w hethert he “c it izen ’s fo rum ” p o rt ion o f a cit yb o ard o f su p erv isors m ee ti n g w as a p u b li c f o rum o r a lim ite d p u b lic f

o ru m . I d. at281. W e not ed thateven the publ i c di s cus s i on por t i on of t he m eet i ng w as l i m i t ed i n s cope t o m at t er s r el at i ng t o t he l ocal governm entand thatt he m eet i ng w as nott he equi val entof a tr adi t i onal publ i c forum s uch as a publ i c s t r eetor p a rk . I d. I n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat“‘ publ i c bodi es m ayconfi ne t hei rm eet i ngs t o s peci fi ed s ubj ectm at t er , ’ ” i d. ( quot i ng C i t y of Madis on Joi ntSchool D is tr i ct v. W is cons i n E m

pl oym ent

R elat i ons C om m is s i on , 4 2 9 U . S . 1 6 7 , 1 7 5 n . 8 (19 7 6 )), w e re a c h e d th e c o n c lu sio n th a t “m a tters p re se n ted a t a c iti z e n ’s f o ru m m a yb e lim ited to i s s ues ger m ane t o t ow n governm ent . ” I d.6

A gai ns tt hi s backdr op, w e det er m i ned thatt he pl ai nt i ff i n E i chenlaub coul d not es t abl i s h a Fi r s tA m endment vi ol at i on beca us e r es t r i ct i ng behavi ort hatw as “r epet i t i ve a n d tru c u le n t,” a n d in v o lv e d “ re p e a te d ly in te rr u p t[ in g ] t h e c h a ir m a n o f th e m e e tin g ,” cons t i tut ed “the s or tof t i m e, pl ace , and mannerr egul at i on thatpas s es m us t erundert he m os ts t r i ngents crut i nyfora publ i c forum . ” I d. W e expl ai ned thatt o t he ext entt he restri cti o n s o n the p lai n ti ff ’s sp ee ch “w ere n o t stri ctl yco n tent-ne u tr al, the c h airm an ’s act i ons s er ved the func t i on of conf i ni ng t he di s cus s i on t o t he purpos e of the meet i ng, ” but we u l t i ma t e l yc o n c l u d e d t h a tt h e r e s t r i c t i o n s i mp o s e d o n t h e p l a i n t i f f d e r i v e d f

r o m a “per fec t l ys us t ai nabl e and c ont ent - neutr al des i r e t o pr event[the pl ai nt i ff’ s ] badger i ng, cons t anti nt errupt i ons , and di s r egar d fort he rul es of dec orum . ” I d. O n ap p ea l, O lasz a rgu es th at, u n d er Me rk le , t he corr ects t andar d foranal y zi ng a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t w ith re sp e c t to a § 1 9 8 3 m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n c laim is w hether“no r eas onabl e i nfer ence can be dr aw n t hatA ppel l ant ’ s s peec h w as atl eas tone f a c to r in th e d e c isio n to p ro se c u te th e A p p e llan t.” T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit b o th beca us e i tm i s cons t rues t he t es tw e us ed i n Me rk le and bec aus e i tfai l s t o r ecogni ze that t he Me rk le t es tappl i ed t o a cl ai m di ffe r entt han the one pur s ued byO l as z. T he pl ai nt i ff i n Me rk le w as a s chool t eac herw ho publ i cl yexpr es s ed cr i t i ci s m of ce r t ai n pol i ci es of the s chool di s t r i cti n w hi ch s he w as empl oy ed. W hen cr i m i nal char ges w er e l at erbr ought agai ns tt he t eac hers t emm i ng fr om herat t empt t o r emove ar ts uppl i es fr om t he s chool , s he cl ai m ed thatt he cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on w as i ns t i tut ed i n r et al i at i on forherout s poken7

c o m m e n ts . Me rk le , 211 F. 3d at793. W e empl oy ed a thr ee- s t ep t es tt o anal y ze he r r et al i at i on cl ai m , l ooki ng fi r s tatw hethert he pl ai nt i ff “ demonst r at e[d] t hathers peec h w as prot ect ed, ” secon d at w hethert he p l ai nti ff co uld “show t hat herspeech w as a m o tiv a tin g f

a c to r in th e a lleg e d re talia to rya c tio n ,” a n d th ird a t w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n ts c o u l d d e f

e a tt h e p l a i n t i f

f ’ s c l a i m “ b ye s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t[ t h e y ] wo u l d h a v e t a k e n t h e s a me adver s e ac t i on agai ns t[the pl ai nt i ff] even i n t he abs ence of herpr ot ect ed s peec h. ” I d. (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he Me rk le t es tdoes notappl yt o t he pr es entcas e bec aus e O l as z di d notal l ege that t he cri m i nal pr osecuti on w as i nit i at ed in r et al i at i on of h i s prot ect ed spee ch. N on et heles s, e v e n if w e in ter p re ted O las z ’s a lleg a tio n s to sta te s u c h a c laim , the a p p ro p ria te a n a ly sis m u s t s till b e g in w ith a re v ie w o f w h e th e r a F ir s t A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n c a n b e e s ta b lis h e d . I tw oul d be i nappr opr i at e fora courtt o cons i dert he s econd pr ong of the t es t( i . e. , t he defe ndant ’ s m ot i vat i on fort he r et al i at or yact i on) , as O l as z ur ges , w i t houtfi ndi ng t hatt he f irst p ro n g is m e t (i. e ., th e p lain tiff ’s s p e e c h w a s p ro tec ted ). B e c a u se O las z f a ils to dem on strat e t hat he eng aged i n p rot ect ed spee ch an d h i s r i gh t s und er the F i rs t A m endment w er e vi ol at ed, hi s § 1983 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m cannotadvanc e. O l as z’ s cl ai m w i t h r es pectt o “[t ] he r ecor d of pol i t i cal and pol i cydi ffe r ence s betw een A ppel l antand A ppel l ee, ” does notgi ve r i s e t o t he i nfer ence t hatW el s h’ s act i ons cons t i tut ed i m per m i s s i bl e vi ew poi nt - bas ed r egul at i on of O l as z’ s s peec h. T he es s ence of O lasz’s a ll eg ati o n s o f a fre e sp ee ch v iolati o n is th at W elsh ’s “c o n stan t ‘ o u t- o f-o rde r’8

rul i ngs s quel ch fr ee s peec h, ” and W el s h’ s “true mot i ves ar e t o s i l ence ” O l as z bec aus e of t he pol i t i cal r i val r ybetw een the tw o m en. T hi s s i m pl ydoes notes t abl i s h an u n c o n stitu tio n a l in f

rin g e m e n t u p o n O las z ’s p ro tec ted F irst A m e n d m e n t sp e e c h . A s in E i chenlaub , W elsh ’s ac ti o n s at t h e tw o B o rou g h C o u n cil m ee ti n g s to c o n str ain O lasz’s “badge r i ng, cons t anti nt errupt i ons , and di s r egar d fort he rul es of dec orum , ” 385 F. 3d at 281, cons t i tut e appr opr i at e t i m e, pl ace , and mannerr egul at i ons . E ven w hen vi ew i ng O las z ’s g e n e ra l alle g a tio n s o f d if f e rin g p o lit ica l o p in io n s in a lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to O l as z, he i s unabl e t o demonst r at e thatW el s h’ s act i ons amount ed t o vi ew poi ntr egul at i on in v io latio n o f

th e F irst A m e n d m e n t. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatW el s h’ s act i ons “s er ved the func t i on of a d h e ri n g to ru le s o f

d e c o ru m a n d c o n f

in in g th e d is c u s s io n to th e p u rp o s e o f th e m e e tin g ,” and thatr es t r i ct i ng O l as z’ s di s rupt i ve beha vi orcons t i tut es t he type of t i m e, pl ace , and m a n n e r r e g u la tio n th a t s u rv iv e s e v e n th e m o s t s tr in g e n t s c ru tin yf o r a p u b lic f

o ru m . T h e re f o re , w e f in d th a t O las z su f

f e re d n o F irst A m e n d m e n t v io latio n o n w h ich to b a se h is § 1 9 8 3 ma l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n c l a i m. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.