The Honorable David L

. Bunning , United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Easter n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. -1- NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0481n.06 F iled: July 5, 2007 No. 05-6733 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

CALEB WIL SON, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. JOSEP H E. JOH NSO N, P r e side nt of t he Un iv ersi ty o f

Te n n ess ee; J AN S IME K, Interim Direc tor o f

the University of Tenne s s ee School of Architec ture; P AUL LEE, Indi vid ual ly a nd as Di r e c to r of t he University of Tennessee School of Art ; MARLENE DAVIS, In d i vidu ally and as F orm er D irec tor of the University of Tenn es s ee S ch o o l of Architect ure; EDWARD YOVELLA, Ind ividu ally and as Chief of the Un iversity of

Tennessee P olice De par t m e nt ; R

AL P H M OLES, Indi vid ual ly and i n hi s Of

fi cial Capacity; ROBE RT CUMM IN G S, I ndiv idua llyand i n his Offic ialCa pac it y; SCO TT BR OOK S, Ind ividu ally and in h is Of fi cial Capacity; De fend ant s- App e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O N A P P E A L F R O M T H E U N I T ED STA TES DI STR IC T C OU RT F OR THE EA STER

N D ISTRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE

Before: G IBBO NS and McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and B UNNING , District Judge. * JULIA SMITH G IBBO NS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appe llant Caleb Wil son appea ls the-2-

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra

nt of su mma

ry jud g me nt to the de fe nd ants -a pp e lle e s, a ll o ff

ic ia ls o f t he Un ive rs ity of Tenne ssee (“the University ”), on his c laims pur suant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983. W ilson claims that the defe ndants violated hi s rig hts under the First and Four th Amendments when they alleg edly remove d painted messag es and hang ing ba nners that Wilson had place d on University buildings to protest the then-impending war with I raq. F urthermor e, Wilson claims that defenda nts violated his rights under the Four teenth Amendme nt by promulg ating a st udent di sciplinary provision ag ainst vandalism that is too vag ue and by

failing to provide sufficie nt notice of the University sign- posting policy

. For the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

. I. On Fe bruar

y 13, 2003, Caleb Wilson, a student at the University of Tenne ssee, went to the University ’s Art and Arc hitecture Building (“A &A ”) to make banne rs protesting the impending war with I raq. Ea ch of the banner s was appr ox imately three fee t by

six fee t in size. Wil son hung three b an n er s i nt h e A &A , o n e fr o m a ba l co n y o n t h e in s i d e of t h e bu i l d i n g an d t wo o u t s i d e t h e b u i l d i n g. Wi l s o n p ai n t ed t he wor ds “NO WAR” in y ellow paint on the exterior wa ll of the A& A, on the interior door of

the elevator in the A&A, an d o n t he fr ont doors of the Stokely Athletic Center (“SAC”) . Def

endant Of fice r Robert Cummings of the University ’s police de partment arrived at the

sc e ne and arr e ste d Wils on fo r va

nd a lis m, pu

bli c int oxic a tio n, and e va din g arr e st. Af te r t he a rr e st, defe ndant Off

icer Scott Brooks, a lso of the Univer sity ’s police de partment, arrived at the scene

. After Wil son was take n t o t h e police station, he a dmitted to painting on the A& A and SAC and hang ing b an n e r s o n th e A & A w it h o u t p e r mi s s io n . D e f

e n d an t Po li c e Ch ie f E dw ar d Y o v e lla was

no tif ie d o f t he va nd a lis m and the ba

nn e rs bu t wa s not told of the ir c on te nt. Yo ve lla ins tr uc te d h is office rs to return to c ollect the banne rs as evidenc e. Cummi ng s and def endant Ser g eant Ralph Moles-3-

returne d to the scene and found that a janitor had a lrea dy t ak en d o wn the banne rs. Ther e is no evidenc e that any

other sig ns, hung by

other pe rsons, wer e re moved. On the nig ht of Wil son’s arr est, an e mploy ee of the Fa cilities Services De par t m ent of the University

who had r esponsibility

for maintena

nce of the A& A and SAC rece i v ed a c all from an unnamed Unive rs i t y p o lice depa rtment dispatcher

informing him that the buildings had be en vandalized, that the investig ation was c omplete, and that h e “n ee d ed t o take c are of it.” An independe nt contrac tor remove d Wil son’s g raf fiti, but other g raf

fiti were not removed. As of F e br

ua ry 13 , 200 3, a numbe r o f U niv e rs ity po lic ie s p ote nti a lly

a pp lie d to the inc ide nt. Th e of fi c ia l st ud e nt ha nd bo ok state d that e xclu sio n f ro m th e Un ive rs ity

or a le sse r p e na lty

may re su lt fr om m isc on du c t, inc lud ing : (1) “ [v]and a lis m, ma lic iou s des tr uc tio n, dama g e , or m isu se of pr ivate or public prope rty , including libra ry materia l,” (2) “ [v] iolation of written Univer sity policies or regulations as stipulated here in or as promulg ated and announce d by authorized personne l,” and ( 3)

“ [c]o mmi ssi on

of an a c t or an atte mpt to c omm it a

n a c t on Un ive rs ity

pr op e rt y . . . th a t w ou ld b e in violation of state or fe dera l law.” The University al s o h ad published a F acilities Service s Guide providing that the “g ener al pos ting of notices and signs within campus buildi ng s and on the g rounds of the Unive rsity

is allowable only on Bulletin Boa rds provided for this purpose .” Additionally , the Guide provide d that the “posting and/or distribut i o n o f political and/or commer cial sig ns and handbills is not permitt ed in ca mpus buildi ng s or on the g rounds of the U niversity .” At the time of the incide nt, numerous messag es painted on walls and posted signs w ere on display in appar ent violation of t he st ated University policies. There wer e no appr oved plac es for g ra ff iti , an d t h e p a i n t i n g o f

m e s s a g e s o nt h e A & A an d S A C w a s n e v e r

p e r m i t t e d

. C e rt a i ns i g n s, reg ard in g s tu d e n t d is p la

y s o f art o r an n o u n c in g s tu d e n t e v e n ts , w e r e e n c o u r a g e d b u t r e quired-4-

a pp ro va l f ro m th e fa c ult

y be fo re po sti ng . V iol a tio ns of the Un ive rs ity ’s po lic ie s we re un ive rs a lly viewed a s a p ro b lem by

University

personne l, but practica l and budg etar y conce rns pre vented the immediate re moval of off ending g raf

fiti and signs. The ref

ore, the remova l of offe nding items wa s prioritized based upon how notice able or intrusive the offe nding items w ere . The Unive rsity did not po st n oti c e s o f i ts v and a lis m and sig n p os tin g po lic ie s o n th e wa lls of the A& A a

nd SAC

. Wil son claims that, at t he ti me of the i ncident, he did not know that painting on the struc ture of t he A&A and SAC was a violation of University policy or st ate va ndalism law. He state d that he be lie ve d th a t pa int ingon

the str uc tur e of the A& A a

nd SAC wa s c on do ne d b e c a

us e pr e vio us g ra ff

iti had not bee n remove d and bec ause he had not hear d that it was deemed criminal. Wi lson claims that he did not rea liz e that it violated Univer sity policy to hang his banners f

rom the A& A. Wils on made no eff orts to determine w hether his actions wer e in fa ct per mitted. Wil son filed a c omplaint in t h e d i strict court a lleg ing violations of his F irst, Fourth, a nd F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt r ig hts re su lti ng fr om the re mov a l of his pa int e d me ssa g e s and ba nn e rs , h is

arr e st w ith ou t pr ob a

ble c a us e , a nd the pr omu lg a tio n and e nf or c e me nt of

va g ue Un ive rs ity

po lic ie s. I n addition to defenda

nts involved on the night of the incident (B rooks, Cummings, Moles, and Yovella, who w ere sued in their individual an d o fficial capa cities), Wilson sued Dr. J oseph E. J ohnson, President of the University , in his officia l c apac ity only , J an Simek, inter im Dir ector of the Sc ho ol o f A rc hit e c tur e , in his of fi c ia l c a pa c ity on ly , Pa

ul L e e , D ir e c tor

of the Sc ho ol o f A rt , in

his individual and official capacities, and Marlene Davis, Director of the S chool of Arc hitecture at the time of the incident, in her individual and officia l capa cities. The district c o u rt gra n t ed summary judgme nt for the de fenda

nts, holding that W ilson’s paintings on the s tructure of t he A&A and SAC

wer e vanda lism not protec ted by the Fir st Amendment and that the re wa s n o evidence that any-5-

de fe nd ant r e mov e d Wil so n’ s b ann e rs be c a us e of the me ssa g e the y c on ve y e d. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt he ld that Wil son was estopped from claiming his a rre st w as without probable c ause be cause the issue was resolved in his state c riminal proce eding s when he pled g uilty to e vading arr est. Fina lly , the district court he ld that the University ’s policies we re not va g ue and pr ovided fa i r n o t i ce c oncer ning

un a c c e pta ble c on du c t. Wi lso n f

ile d a tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l but do e s no t a

pp e a l the c la im of

a rr e st without probable c ause. II. A district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt is reviewe d de novo

. Mc W an e, I nc . v . F ide lit y & Deposit Co. of Md. , 372 F.3d 798, 802 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Summary judgme nt is proper whe n there

are no g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t in dis pu te and th e mo ving pa rt y is e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matter of la

w. Fe d. R. Civ. P. 56(c)

. This court, reviewing the record take n as a w hole, views the evidenc e and dr aws all infere nces in the lig ht most favorable to Wi lson, the nonmoving pa rty

. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenit h Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Howe ver, a mere scintilla of evidenc e is insufficient; “the re must be e vidence on which the jury could re asonably

find for the [nonmovant].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). A. Wil son argues that he ha d a F ir s t Am endment right to paint messag es and ha ng banner s protesting the war in I raq on the A& A and SAC and that his spee ch wa s discriminated ag ainst based on its content. Al tho ug h Wil so n’ s b ann e rs may c on sti tut e po lit ic a l pr ote st p ro te c te d und e r t he F ir st Am en d m en t , such spee ch is not “equa lly permissible in all place s and at a ll tim es.” Cornelius v. NAA C P L egal Def. and Educ. Fund, Inc

. , 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985). “T he Supreme Court has-6-

a do pte d a fo rum ana ly sis fo r u se in d e te rm ini ng whe the r a state -i mpo se d r e str ic tio n o n a c c e ss t o public proper

ty is constituti onally

permissible.” United Food &Commercial W orkers Union, Local 1099 ( UFCW U) v. S.W . Ohio Reg’l Transit Auth. , 163 F.3d 341, 349 (6th Cir. 1998)

. This c ourt has classified public pr operty as one of

three ty pes of f ora: (1) the traditional public for um, (2) the desig nated public forum, and (3) the nonpublic forum. Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookeville, Tenn. , 221 F.3d 834, 842 ( 6th Cir. 2000). All public pro p er t i es t h at are not traditional public fora or desig nated public fora are nonpublic fora

. See Int’l Soc’y for Kri shna Consciousness, Inc. v . Lee , 505 U.S. 672, 678-79 (1992). As W i l s o n concedes that the A &Aand SAC do not constitute traditional public fora, the court must only deter

mine whether they are desig nated public fora or nonpubl ic fora. A designated public forum is an otherwise nonpublic forum fr om which the g overnme nt has desig nated “ a plac e or cha nnel of c ommunication for use by t h e p u b l i c at larg e for assembly and spee ch, for

use by

cer tain speake rs, or for

th e d i s cu s s ion of ce rtain subjects.” Cornelius , 4 73 U. S. at 80 2; se e Pe rry Educ. Ass’n v . Perry Local Educ ators’ Ass’n , 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983) (noting that the g overnme nt is “ no t r e qu ir e d to c re a te the fo rum in the fi rs t pla c e ” ). “ Th e g ov e rnme nt doe s not cr e a te a pu bli c forum by inaction or by

permitting limited discourse , b u t o n l y by intentionally

opening up a nontraditional forum for public discourse.” Un ite d Fo od & Com me rc ial W or k e rs L oc al 1 09 9 v . Ci ty of Sidney , 364 F.3d 738, 749 (6 t h Cir. 2004) (citing Cornelius , 473 U.S. at 802). “Adesig nated public forum is not cre ated whe n t h e gover nment allows selec tive acc ess for individual spea kers rathe r than g ener al ac cess f or a c lass of speakers.” Ark. Educ. Telev ision Comm’n v. Forbes , 523 U. S. 6 66 , 6 79 (1 99 8) . To de te rm ine wh e the r the Un ive rs ity int e nd e d to cr e a te a de sig nate d p ub lic fo rum, t he c ourt loo ks to t he “ g ov e rnme nt’ s p oli c y

and pr a c tic e wi th re sp e c t to the fo rum, as we ll-7-

as t o th e n a tu

r e o f th e p r o p e rty a t is s u e an d it s ‘ c o mp a ti b il it y w it h e xp r e s s iv e a c ti v it

y , ’ ” and the “conte x t w ithin which the forum is found.” Kincaid v. Gibson , 236 F.3d 342, 349 ( 6th Cir. 2001) ( en banc ) ( qu o t i n g Cornelius , 473 U.S. at 802). Wil son argues that the structure of the A&A and SAC ar e desig nated public f ora on w hich the Univer sity

allows expressive painti n g and the ha ng ing of banner s. There fore , it was inappropriate for the dis t ri ct court to dism iss W ilson’s painted messag es as va ndalism that is not protec ted by

the Fir st Amendment. I f W ilson’s forum ana ly sis were corr ect, his painted me ssag es would be not be va

ndalism beca

use painting would be per mitted. Howeve r, W ilson has provided no evidenc e fr om which to conclude that the A& A and SAC

are desig nated public f

ora. The University ’s pol icies are clear and unambig uous. There is no policy g ra nti ngpe rm iss ion

to p a int me ssa g e s, and

pa int ingme ssa g e s w ith ou t pe rm iss ion wo uld c on sti tut e vandalism, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-408, which is a viol ation of t he st andar ds of conduc t. The posting of sig ns is permitted only on a desig nated bul l et i n b oard. I n fac t, Wi lson conce des that “these written rules, taken tog ether , do seem to establish a w ritten policy that prohibits the ty pe of sign posting in which [W ilson] eng ag ed.” Rather, Wilson arg ues that the Unive rsity ’s pra ctices w ere inconsistent with its stated policy beca use it f ailed to “ consistently clea n up or re move the sig ns” or notify the public of its policy . How ev er , as the Unive rsity “does not c reate a public f orum by inaction,” this provides no evidenc e of intent. City of Sidney , 364 F.3d at 749. But see United States v. Kokinda , 497 U.S. 720, 737-38 (1 9 9 0) (Ke nnedy , J ., concur ring in the judgme nt) (ar g uing that objective c hara cter istics and customary use by the public may

control for

um d esi g nation over g overnme nt intent). To the extent that signs wer e permitted, they require d fac ulty approva l and do not r epre sent the g ener al ac cess r equire d of a de signated public forum. See F orbes , 523 U.S. at 679.-8-

Fur thermore , the nature of the proper ty is no more compatible with expressive ac tivity than any other flat surfa ce, a

nd althoug h the context is one of a univer sity that is “the quintessential marke tplace of idea s,” Kin c aid , 236 F.3d at 352 (in t er n al quotation omitt ed), that context does not preclude “re asonable regulations c ompatible with th[e] mission [of educ ation],” W idmar v. Vince nt , 4 54 U. S. 263, 267 n.5 (1981). Thus, ther e is a n absenc e of evide nce that the University intended to cr eate a de sig nate d p ub lic fo rum. Be cause the A& A and SAC are nonpublic fora , the g overnme nt may control ac cess “ ‘base d on subject matter a

nd speake r identity so long as the distinctions dra wn are rea sonable in lig ht of the purpose se rved by

the forum a

nd are viewpoint neutra l.’” Kin c aid , 236 F.3d at 348 (quoting Cornelius , 4 73 U. S. at 80 6) . Wil son do es not di sp ute that th e Un ive rs ity ’s po lic y is f a c ia lly

rea sonable a

nd viewpoint neutra l. He alleg es that the policy was a pplied to him in a discriminatory

manner based upon the viewpoint of his speec h. The only claimed e vidence of viewpoint discrimination is that W ilson’s painted message s and banners were removed promptly while others

we re no t. H ow e ve r, un dis pu te d e vid e nc e indicat es tha t, d ue to p ra c tic a l and

bu dg e tary

c on c e rn s,

remova l of unauthorized painting and banne rs was prioritized ba sed upon their pr ominence. I n the absenc e of an y o t her e vidence , the only rea sonable c onclusion is that W ilson’s banners w ere prompt ly r e mo v e d b e c a u s e th e y w e r e u n u s u a ll y

n o ti c e a b le an d in tr u s iv e , n o t b e c a

u s e o f the viewpoint they

expressed. Fur thermore , in a nonpubl ic forum, the gover nment can make reasonable regulations based upon subject matter. Kin c aid , 236 F.3d at 348. To the ex tent that University prac tice allowe d the ha ng ingof ba nn e rs , the y we re a s a “me ans fo r co mmunic a tin g stu de nt ev e nts .” Gi ve n the purp os e of the for a t o p ro v i d e a location for student e ducation and e nrichment, it is rea sonable for the-9-

Un ive rs ity

to a llo w a

nn ounc e me nts of

a c tiv iti e s a

nd pr oh ibi t po lit ic a l me ssa g e s. Finally , even if

t h e court concluded that ther e wa s evidenc e of vie wpoint discrimination, there is no evidenc e that any of the de fenda nts participated in that discr imination. “Be cause § 1983 liability cannot be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior , proof of personal involvement is r equire d for a supervisor to inc ur persona l liabilit y .” Mi lle r v. C alh ou n Co un ty , 408 F.3d 803, 817

n. 3 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 5)

. Th e re is no ev ide nc e that def e nd ants Da

vis , Joh ns on , L e e , Si me k, and Yo ve lla

wer e aw are of t he content of t he painted messag es or ba nners pr ior to their re moval. Although the

re mai ni ng defe nd ants , B ro ok s, Cummin g s, and Mo le s, we re awa

re of the c on te nt o f t

he ba nn e rs , the re is n o e vid e nc e that th e y e ith e r r e mov e d, or

ins tr uc te d th e re mov a l of

, th e ba nn e rs . There fore , Wil son has fa iled to demonstrate e vidence that t h e re m o v al of the pa inted

me ssa g e s o r b ann e rs wa s a vio la tio n o f h is F ir st A me ndme nt r ig hts

.

B. W i l s o n ’ s ar g u m e n tt h a th i s F o u rt h A m e n d m e n tr i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d b y t h e s e i z u r e o f

h is banner s is without m erit. As noted a bove, ther e is no evidenc e that any of the de fenda

nts were involved with t

h e r e mo v a l o f

th e b an n e r s . F u rth e r

mo r e , th e F o u rth

A me n d me n t i s n o t v io late d throug h the sear ch or seizure of “aba ndoned” proper

ty , proper ty in w hich a person can n o l ong er claim a c ontinuing, leg itimate expectation of privac y . United States v. Robinson , 390 F.3d 853, 873- 74 (6th Cir. 2004). Wils on cannot c laim any expectation of privac y

in the banner s t h at he lef t ha ng ingin p ub lic pla c e s. C. Wils on ’s argume nt t

hat the Un ive rs ity ’s po lic y pr oh ibi tin g va nd a lis m is unc on sti tut ion a lly vag ue under

the Four teenth Amendme nt has no merit. Due proce ss require s that a state e nactment-10-

is “void for va g ueness if its prohibitive terms ar e not clea rly define d such that a pe rson of ordina ry intelligenc e ca

n rea dily identify that applicable standard f

or inclusion and exclusion.” U F C WU , 163 F.3d at 358-59. Althoug h vandalism is not defined in t he University ’s disciplinary policy , the policy is not vag ue if the m eaning of t he ter m can e asily

be dete rmined without undue burde n. See V ill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hof f man Est ates, Inc. , 4 55 U. S. 4 89 , 5 01 n. 18 (1 98 2) . T he mos t ob vio us de fi nit ion

is f ound in T e nn e sse e law, wh ich pr ov ide s th a t a pe rs on is g uil ty of va nd a lis m if he “ knowing ly

cause s damag e to or the de struction of any rea l or persona l pr operty of another

. . . knowing that the person does not ha ve the owner ’s ef

fec tive consent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14- 408(a) . Any

conce rn that a pe rson could unwittingly ex p o s e h i m s el f to punishment due to the vag ueness of

the def inition of vandalism is overcome by the re quirement of knowledg e. See United States v. Caseer , 399 F.3d 82 8 , 8 3 9 (6th Cir. 2005). Fur thermore , the Univer sity

is under no obligation to ensure eve ry person ha s “spec ific” notice of its policies. See Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v . Tatum , 58 F.3d 1101, 1105 ( 6th Cir. 1995) (“Th e re quirement of f air notice is not applied mecha nically or without reg ard for t he common sense judgment that people do not reviewcopies of

e ve ry law p a sse d. ” ). I ts p oli c ie s w e re pu bl ishe d a nd g e ne ra lly a va ila ble to a ny on e int e re ste d in learning of th e m. A s s u mi n g f o r th e s a k e o f

s u mm ar y ju d g me n t t

h a t W il s o nc o u ld

p la u s ib ly h a ve be lie ve d th a t he wa s a llo wed to pai nt on th e bu ild ing s and po st h is b ann e rs , h e ma de no e ff or t to discover w hether

his actions were pr ohibited. I g noranc e of the law, par ticularly willful ignora

nce such as Wilson ex hibited in this case , is no defense

. See Casee r , 399 F.3d at 835. III

. For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the district court’s de cision.