## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 1300 E DI T H M I LE S T ONE , P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C ITY OF M ON R OE, W ISCO NSIN , D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09- cv-199

— Step hen L . C ro ck er, Magis trate Judge
.
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 15, 2010

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 21, 2011

Befo re M A NI ON, S YKES, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Edi th M i l e s t o ne wa s b a nn e d fr om enter i ng the S en ior C en teri n the Cityo fM onr oe, W i sconsin, b ec au se s he r epe at edl y v i o l at ed th e Cen ter’ s Code ofCondu ct. S he sued the Ci ty und er42 U

. S. C. § 1 983 cl ai m i ng tha t the expuls i on vi ol ate d her f re e- sp eech an d d u e-p ro c es s rig h t s a n d th at th e C od e is fac ially un con stitut ional. A m agistrate j ud ge gran ted sum m ary j ud g men tf o r the Ci t y . T he j ud g e h e l d tha tthe S e ni or2 N o. 10

- 1300 Cen te r di r ec to r, who i m po se d t he e xpul si o n pe na l ty, a nd th e M onr oe Se ni orCi ti zens Board, wh i ch pro m ulg ate d the Code a nd approv ed the or d er , w er e no t fi nal po l i cy m ak er s f o r the Ci ty, s o the r e was no b as i s f o r muni c ipal l i abi l i ty. See M o nell v . D ep’t o f So c. Servs. , 4 3 6 U. S

. 6 5 8 , 6 9 4 ( 1 9 7 8 )

. Mi l e s t o ne a pp e a l e d. W e a ffi rm , al though on a som ew hat expand ed anal ysi s. W e agr ee that the Se ni or Center dir ecto r and the S eni or Citi zens Board were not the Ci ty’ s fi nal pol i cym ake rs f or pu r po s e s o fe nfo r c i ngthe Co de o fCo nd uc t
. Und e r st ate an d l o ca l l aw, M i l es to ne ha d the r i g htt o a skthe M onr oe Com m on Council t o ove rturn the expuls i on or der, and herf ai l ure to do so pre cl ud es m u n icip al li abili ty un d er M onell t o the e xt en t th atthe c la i m ed co nst i tu ti o na l v i o l at i o ns s te m fr o m the i m po si ti o n ofthe ba n . T h i s r e s u l td o e s n o ti mpo s e a r e q u i r e me n to fe xha us ti o n o fa dm i ni st rativ e r emedi es unde r § 1 98 3, b ut f o l low s fro m the Co m m o n Co unc i l ’ s r o l e as the r el ev an t pol i cym ake r f orthe sancti on i m posed on M i l est one. M i l es to ne ’ s f ac i alc ha l l en g e to th e Code r es ts o n a different foundati on, however

. By M onr oe or dinance, the S eni orCi ti zens Board has the au th or i ty to m ake rules for th e Senior C en ter; th e C od e itsel f is therefore ci ty pol i cy. But M i l est one’ s f aci alchal l enge i s fla w ed on the m er i ts. The Code consi sts of re aso nabl e “ti m e, pl ace, o r manne r ” r es tr i ct i o ns , a nd i s ne i th er unc o ns ti tu
t i o na l l y v a g ue n o r o v e rb r o a d.N o. 10

- 1300 3 I . B a c kg r o und E dith M i l est one, a seni orci ti zen, l i ves i n M onr oe, W i sco nsi n, a sm al l city that c l ai m s the ti tl e o fthe “Swis s Che es e Capi ta l o fthe U. S

. A. ” Pr i o r to 2 008 M i l es to ne o fte n v i si te d the Be hr i ngS en i o r Ce nt er, ope r at ed bythe Ci tyo fM o nr o e. The Seni o r Ce nt eri s o pent o the 55- and-o verco m m unity fro m M onr oe ( a/k/ a the “che ese ci ty” ) and the surr ounding ar ea. A m ong othe r acti vi ti es, the S eni orCentero ffer s cl ass es, m eal s, exer ci se prog ra m s, and card g am es. The M o nr o e S en i o r Ci ti ze ns Bo ar d, c o m p ris ed o fnine ci ti ze n v o l unteers , i s empower ed to a do pt r ul es a nd re gul ati ons to “se cure the s uit abl e use a n d enj oym ent” of th e “c he es e ci ty so ci al ce nt er bui l di ng . . . b y s en i o r c i ti ze ns ofM onr oe .”M ON R OE, W IS ., C ODE § § 2-12-1, 2-12-3(A ), ( C ). Pu r s ua ntt o thi s a utho r i t y, the Bo a r d p r o mul g a t e d a Code of Cond uct f or vi si tor s to the Center. A m ong ot her th i ng s, the Co de pr o hibi ts “ ab us i ve , vul g ar, o r de m ea ni ng l anguage , ” “ physi cal l y threa teni n g” conduct, and dis re spe ct fulb eh av i o r t o war d pa tr o ns , the Ce nt er ’ s st aff, a nd o ut si de i ns tr uct o r s. The Co de pr o vi des tha t “[ v]iol at i o ns o fthis c o de o fc o nduc t wi l l b e ac te d upo n b y the S en i o r Ce nt ers ta ff or Boa r d o fDi r ec to r s. ” Copi es o fthe Code ofCondu ct were post ed thr oughout the b uil ding. M i l est one’ s v i si ts to the C en terwere f ra ught with tu rm oi l

. H erfi l e incl ud ed a num bero f“inci dent r epor ts” al l eg i ngthe f o l l o wi ngdi sturbance s: S he e ng ag ed i n a shouti ng m atch a t a car d gam e (F eb ruar y 2 002) ; she tr i ed to g etthe Ce nt er ’ s di r ec to r fi r ed ( Dec embe r 2 00 5) ; she fi l ed f r i vo l o us po l i ce c o m pl aint s ab o uto th erpat r o ns4 N o. 10

- 1300

The re ar e s om e f ac t ual d i s put es aboutw hatha ppene d duri ng 1 t h i s i n c i de n t
. B e c a u s e we a r e r e v i e wi n g a n o r de r g r a n t i ng sum m a r y jud g m en t, w e reco u nt th e facts in the lig ht m ost fa v o ra b le to M ile sto n e, th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . Tu rne r v. The Sal oon, Lt d. , 59 5 F .3d 67 9 , 68 3 (7t h C ir . 20 1 0 ). (J an ua ry 2006); sh e yell ed at pa trons and st a ff( Febru ary 2006 ) ; she advi sed ano therpatr on t o go to confes si on ( F eb r ua r y 2 006) ; s he a cc us ed o th erpa tr o ns o fs pr ea di ng r um o r s ab o uthe r ( Oct o be r 2 00 7) ; and sh e th r ew pl ay i ng card s across a table ( D ecem ber 2007 ). I n Feb rua ry 2006 the M onr oe ci ty at torney wrot e M i l est one a l ett er i nfo rm i ng herthatthe Citym i ght ha ve to see k a re st r aini ngo r dera g ains t he r i fs he f ai l ed to “ co nform to r e as on ab le s ta n d ar d s o f d ec or u m w h ile at th e C en te r.” T he City ne ver fol low ed up on th is l etter. I n Oc tobe r 2 00 8 M i l es to ne was i nv o l ve d in an inc i den t th atl ed to he r e xpul si o n fr o m th e Ce nt er . W hi l e pl ay i ng 1 ca r ds, M i l es to ne b eg anl o udl y c o m pl aini nga bo utthe sco ring o fthe gam e. W he n the gam e was fi ni shed, M i l est o ne a ng r i l y r efus ed to a cc eptthe o ne - do ll ar pri ze s he had w on be cause she thought that the g am e had be en sco re d i ncor re ctl y. Tam m y Der ri ckso n, the Se ni orCenter dir ecto r, approa ched M i l est one an d to l d her that her behavi orwas not acceptabl e. The two go t into a hea ted disc ussi on, wh i ch es cal ate d w hen M i l est one w agg ed her fi ng er i n D errickson’s face an d threat en ed to sue h er. Derr i ckso n re i ter ate d that M i les tone ’ s be havi orwas una c ceptabl e a nd to l d her that she was no l onge r all ow ed to vi sit the C en ter.N o. 10

- 1300 5 The ne xtda y, De r r i ck son se ntM i l es to ne a l et te r i nf o r mi n g h e r th a t s h e wa s “ n o l o n g e r we l c o me t o a tt en d Se ni orCenterProg ra m s” base d on the f ol l owing vi ol ati o ns o fthe Ce nt er ’ s Code o fCo nd uc t: “( 1) [ n] o t tr ea ting ot h er p ar tic ip an ts w ith res p ec t[;] (2) [a ]b u siv e la n gu ag e[;] ( 3) [ n] o t tr ea tingS enio r Ce nt ers ta ffi n a r es pec tful m an [ner; an d ] ( 4) [ p] hy si cal ly th reaten ing con d uc t.” Before se ndi ngthe l et te r, De r r i ck so n r ev i ewe d i t wi ththe m ayo r, the ci ty att or ney, and the chi efof p olic e, but not w ith an y m em b er s o f th e C ity ’s C om m on C ou n c il. M i lest o ne ’ s at to r ne y wro te t o the S en i o r Ci ti ze ns Bo ar d a nd r eque st ed a co py o fthe Cod e and a ny do cum entat i on r ega rdi ng the i nci dent thatpre ci pit ate d her ex pul si o n. An a ss i st an t ci ty atto r ne y pr o vi ded th e do cum ents and al so in form ed M i l est one’ s a tto rneythatM i l esto ne co uld a p peal Derr i ckso n’s deci si on t o the S eni or Ci ti ze ns Bo ar d v i a a “due pr o ce ss he ar i ng . ” M i l es to ne exer ci sed thi s r i ght. The S en i o r Ci ti zens Bo ar d c o nv en ed a he ar i nga nd he ar d t es ti m o ny unde r o ath fr o m M i l es ton e, De r r i ck so n, a n d o th er w itness es. I n a w ritten d ecision, th e B oard affi rm ed Derr i ckso n’s act i on but m odi fi ed the ban to re m ov e its ap p ar en t pe rp et u al d u ra tio n . T h e B oa r d s aid i t would “c onsi der a peti ti on f orr ei nstat em ent b y Edith M i l est one up on pro ofo fsucce ssful com ple ti on o fan acc red ited ‘A ng er M an agem en t ’ program

. ” Th e B oard al so a dvi se d M i l es to ne o fhe r r ight to ta k e ana dm i nist ra tiv e a p p ea l t o t h e C ity ’s C om m on C ou n c il w ith in 30 d ay s an d th at if sh e failed to d o so , th e B oa rd ’s d e c isi on would “be tre at ed as a fi nal deter m i nati on” f or6 N o. 10

- 1300 p u rp os es of j u d icia l rev iew
. See W IS
. S T AT . §§ 62.12(2), 62. 13. M i l es to ne di d no t appeal the Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n t o the Comm on C ounc i l o r s ee kj udi ci alr ev i ew. Nordi d s he en r o l l i n a n a ng er - m an ag ementprogra m . I ns te ad, s he f i l e d thi s § 1 9 8 3 l a ws ui ta g a i ns tthe Ci t y a l l e g i ngv i ol atio ns o fherfre e- speech a nd due-pr oce ss ri ghts und er the F i rs t a n d Fo urte enth Am endm ents. A m agi str ate j ud ge, pro ceedi ng byco nsent, gr anted the Ci ty’ s m oti on f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t, hol di ngtha t Der r i ck so n a nd the Se ni or Center Board w er e not fi nal pol i cym ake rs f or p urp oses of m un ici p al l iabil ity un d er M onell

. Though he di d no t r ea chthe mer i ts , the j ud ge note d tha t th e Cityhad “a l egi ti m ate i nter est i n m i ni m i zi ng di sr up ti on an d k e e p i n gth e [ s e n i o r ] c e n t e r a p l e a s a n te n v i r o nm en t for its vis ito rs .”

I I . Discussi on T h i s c a s e c o mes t o u s fr o m a n o r d e r g r a n t i n gs u mm ar y j ud gm ent forthe City, s o our re vi ew i s de no vo; w e co nstr ue al l f acts and re aso nabl e infe re nces i n f avo r of M iles to n e, th e no n m ov i n g p ar ty
. O gden v. Atte rholt, 606 F. 3d 35 5, 358 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)

. M i l est one ar gued bel ow and r ei ter ate s here th at Derr i ckso n’s deci si on to expel h er fr om the Se ni orCenteram ounts to vi ew p oint disc ri m i nati on i n vi ol ati on o fherr i ght t o f re e spe ec h. S he a l so c l ai m s th e Code of C onduc t i s unc o nstituti onal l y o verbro ad i n that i t s w eeps in to o m uch prot ecte d speech, subj ecting itto the thr eato fpunishm ent. F i na l ly, s he a l l eg es s ev er aldue

- pr o ce ss v i o l at i o ns . S heN o. 10

- 1300 7 cl ai m s that: ( 1) the ban was im posed witho ut a hear i ng, vio l ati ng herr i ght t o du e pr oce ss; ( 2) the Code depri ved h er of fair n ot ice be c au se it d oe s n otp re sc rib e s p ec ific penal ti es; and ( 3) the deci si on to e xpel her f ro m the Se ni or Center vi ol ate d her ri ght t o m ove abo ut i n publi c pl aces . The m agi str ate j ud ge di d not r each the m er i ts ofthes e cl ai m s but i nstea d enter ed j ud gm ent for t h e C i ty after fi ndi ng no ba si s f o r m uni ci pal l i ab i l i ty
. To the ext ent th a tMi l e s t o n e ’ s c l a i ms r e l a t e t o th e e x p ul si o n o r d e r, we ag r ee . M i l es to ne s ue d the Ci ty, no t Der r i ck so n, who i m posed the b an , or the m em ber s o fthe Se ni orCenter Board, wh o affi rm ed i t. There i s no r espondeat superi or l i abi l i ty und er § 1983 ; the Suprem e Court “dis ti ngui sh[ es] acts o fthe m uni cipal i ty from acts of em plo yees of t h e m u n icipal i ty. ” P em baur v. Ci ty of C inci nnati, 47 5 U.S

. 46 9, 47 9 (19 86 ); C ity of O kla. C ity v. Tuttl e, 471 U

. S . 8 0 8 , 8 18 (1985); M onell, 436 U .S. at 6 91 ; s e eal s o L e wis v. Ci ty of Chic ago , 49 6 F. 3d 645, 65 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “M i sbehav i ng em plo yee s ar e r esponsibl e for the i r own co nd uct, [ but] uni ts of l oca l go ver nm ent a re r esp onsibl e o nl y forthei r pol i ci es ra thertha n m i sco nd uct bythei r w or ker s. ” ( quotati on m ar ks om i tte d))

. Fo r m unici pal l i abi l ity u nd er§ 1983 , the c on stituti onalvi ol ati on m ust be cause d by ( 1) an expr e s s mun i c i pal pol i cy; ( 2) a w i despread, tho ugh unw ri tten, custom o r pract i ce; o r ( 3) a deci si on bya m unici pal age nt with “fi nal pol i cym aking autho ri ty. ” D ar ch ak v

. C ity of Chi. B d. of Ed uc. , 580 F.3d 6 2 2 , 6 29 (7th C ir. 2009); se e also M onell, 43 6 U.S

. at69 4. O nly the t h ir d th eory of M onell m unici pal l i abi l i ty i s a t i ssue here

. M i l est one argues that Derr i ckso n, o r al terna-8 N o. 10

- 1300 tively, the Sen ior C iti zen s B oard , w ere fi na l p oli cym akers f o r the Ci ty
. W he th era n e nt i tyha s fi na l po l icy m ak i ng au th or ity is a q u es tio n of st at e o r loc al la w . Je tt v
. D al l as Indep. Sch. D is t. , 491 U .S. 70 1, 73 7 (1 98 9); Kuj aw ski v . Bd. of Com m ’ rs of

Bar t hol om e w Cnty
. , Ind. , 1 8 3 F

. 3 d 7 3 4 , 73 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)

. N ot eve rym unici pal o ffi ci alwith di scr eti on i s a fi nal policym ake r; autho ri ty to m ake fi nal pol i cy i n a g i ven a re a r equi re s m or e th an m er e di scr eti on t o ac t. Se eD ar ch ak, 580 F. 3 d a t 6 30 ; Ger ne tzkev. Ke nos ha U nified Sch . D ist. No . 1 , 274 F.3d 464 , 469 (7th C ir
. 2001). W he th e r a p u b l i c o ffi c i a l h a s fi n a l p o l i c y ma k i ng author i ty often turns o n w hetherhi s deci si ons ar e s ubj ec t t o re vie w by a h igh er offic i a l or ot h er au th or ity
. See Ger ne tzke, 274 F. 3d at 469 ( “[ T]he case s l i m i t m u n icipal l i abi l i ty und erse cti on 1 983 to si tuati ons i n w hi ch th e o ffi ci al who c o m m i ts the a l l eg ed vi o l at i o n o fthe pla i nti ff’ s r i ghts has a uthor i ty that is fin al in the speci al sen se th at th ere is no h igher au th ority. ”). H er e, Derr i ckson i m posed the i ni ti alpunishm ent o f ex pul si o n, a nd the Bo ar d a ffi r m ed he r de ci si o n wi tha m od ifica tio n as to its d u ra ti o n . F or th e C ity to be liab le f orthes e a cti ons, M i l est one m ust fi rs t e stabl i sh that Der r i ck so n o r the Bo ar d h ad fi na l po l i cy m ak i ng author i ty w i th r espectto i m posi ng punis hm ents f or vi ol ati ng the r ule s of the Center. I t’ s cl earthatDerr i ckso n w as not a fi nal pol i cym aker. The Ci ty neverdel ega ted fi na l po l i cy m ak i nga utho r ity t o the di r ec to r o fthe C en te r; t h e C ity C od e d oe s n otev en refe r to th e p os iti on. A l l o fD erri ckso n’s deci si ons ar e s ubj ect to re vi ew bythe S en i o r Ci ti ze ns Bo ar d. S he l ac k ed i nde pen den t author i ty to i m pose disc i pli ne, l et al one th e a uthor i ty toN o. 10

- 1300 9

se t g en er al p olic y on th is iss u e. Se eD ar ch ak, 580 F. 3d at 630. A ccor dingl y, Derr i ckso n’s act i ons did notsu b j ect the Ci ty to l i abi l i ty und er§ 1983

. W hetherthe Board i s the fi nal pol i cym aker i s a so m ew ha tc l o s e r que s t i o n, b utwe a g r e e wi th the ma g i s t r a te j udg e th atunde r s tate an d l o ca l l aw, a nd b as ed o n the st ru cture o fthe Board i tse l f, the Board di d not hav e fi nal pol i cym aking autho ri ty. Chapter 68 of th e W i sconsin St atute s pre scr ibes a g ener alpro cedure f or re vi ew o fi ni ti aladm i ni str ati ve deter m i nati ons l i ke D errickson’s d ecision to ban M il eston e from the C en ter. See W IS
. S T AT . §§ 68

. 08, 68

. 09( 1)

. S peci fi cal l y, chap ter 68 p rovide s th at th e offici al w ho m ad e th e initi a l d e t e rm i na ti o n may c o nduc t th e r ev i ew, o r “ ani nde pen den t r ev i ew o fs uchi ni tial de te r m i na ti o n b y a no th erpe r so n, com m i tte e o r age ncy o fthe m unici pal i ty m ay be pr ovi ded

. ” Id. § 68. 09( 2) . T h e C i ty em pow er ed the Se ni or Ci ti ze ns Bo ar d t o r ev i ew the i ni ti alde te r m i na ti o n, a nd f ol l owing a fullhear i ng, th e B oar d i ssued a “Deci si on o n Re vi ew” a ffi r m i ngDe r r i ck so n’ s dec i si o n. I m po r tan tly, ho wev er, M i l es to ne ha d a s ta tu to r y r i g ht to ap p ea l th e B oa rd ’s d ec isio n to th e C om m on C ou n c il. B ec a u se sh e “ d id n oth av e a h ea rin g s u b st an tia lly in com pli ance with § 6 8.1 1 when the i ni ti aldeter m i nati on w as m ad e,” sh e h a d a n au to m at ic rig h t t o t h is a d d itio n al lev el o fa d m in ist ra tiv e re vie w . Id. § 68. 10(1)(a)

. I nde ed, the Bo ar d ful l y a dvi se d M i l es to ne o fhe r r i g ht to ap p ea l to t h e C om m on C ou n c il. Id. § 6 8
. 0 9 ( 5 )

. I n byp ass i ngthe Co m m o n Co unc i l, M i l es to ne de pr i ve d the Ci ty ’ s fi na l po l i cym akero fthe o ppo r tu ni tyt o r ev i ew the10 N o. 10

- 1300

Be c a u s e th e S e n i o r C i t i z e n s Bo a r d i s s u e d i t s d e c i s i o n f o l l o w- 2 ing a he arin g in co m p lian ce w ith ch ap ter 68 , if M i l e st o ne d id no t appealt o the Com m on Counc i l , the Boar d’ s dec i s i on would be c on si der ed a “fi naldec i s i on” f or pur pos es of j ud ic ial revi ew . M il es to n e had the option offil ing an a ct io n in sta te co u rt see k in g re v ie w b y ce rt io r a ri . W IS . S TAT . § § 68 .12 (2 ), 68 .13 (1 ). a c t s o fmu n i c i p a l s u b o r d i n a t e s , i n c l u d i n gth e i r c o mpli a nc e wi th c i t y po l i c y a nd e v e n the wi s do m o fci ty p oli cy itself

. 2 Apa r tfr o m s t a t e mun i c i pa l l a w, the Mo nr o e Ci t y Co de con fi r ms tha t the Bo a r d i s no t the fi na l a utho r i t y f or p u r p o s e s o f rev iew in g t h e d ire c to r’s d ec isio n s. B y or d inance the Boar d has the f ol l owing pow er s: ( A) T o g o ve r n, mana g e, c o nt r o l, i m pr o ve a nd c are f o r the c he es e ci tys o ci alc en te r b ui l di nga nd gr ou nd s a nd s e c ur e the s ui t a b l e u s e a nd e nj oym ent there ofbyse ni orci ti zens ofM onr oe. ( B) To o ver see pro fess i onalem plo yee s hav i ng r espo ns ibi l i tyfor s en i o r c i ti ze n pr o g r ams a nd acti vi ti es subjec t to po licies a nd pro ced ures a d o p ted bythe city for sup ervisio n o f such em plo yees . ( C) To a do pt r ul es an d r egul at i o ns t o pr o m o te the pu r po s e s f o r wh i c h the b o a r d h a s b e e n c r e a t e d. ( D) To acqu ire in the nam e o fthe ci ty f orse ni or ci ti zen purpose s bygi ft, devi se, beques t o r condem na ti on, ei therabs ol utel y o r i n tr ust, m oney, re alo r perso nal pro perty, o r any r i ght o rN o. 10

- 1300 11 pri vi l ege . Gifts to the city of m oneyo r othe r proper ty, r ealor perso nal, ei therabs ol utel y o r i n tr ust f orse ni orci ti zen purpose s s h all be a c c e p t e d o n l y af t e r th e y s h a l l h a v e b e e n r e c o mm en d ed by th e b oa rd to th e c ou n c ilan d app roved b y thecouncil b y r e s olu tio n . Subje ct to the app roval of the c ouncil , the boar d m ay execute eve rytr ust i m po se d upon the use o fpro perty orpro pertyr i ghts by deed, te sta m ent o r othe r conve yance tr ans fe r r ingtheti tl e o fsuch pro perty to the c i ty f orse ni orci ti zen purpose s. (E) Subje ct to the ap proval of the c ouncil , to buy o r l eas e l and i n the n am e o fthe ci ty f orse ni orci ti zen f aci l i ti es w i thi n the ci ty, and bui l dings f orse ni or ci ti ze n a ct i vi ti es, and, wi ththe a ppr o va l o fthe c o un c i l t o s e l l o r e xc ha ng e pr o pe r t y no l onge r re quir ed f ori ts purposes. ( F) To acqui re and m ai ntai n such equi pm ent as m ay be ne cess ar y t o proper l y c ar ryo ut i ts pu rpos es. ( G) To pr o m o te se ni o r ci ti ze n ac ti vities w ithin the ci ty as i t m ay deem ad vi sabl e a nd i ts budget m ay perm i t. ( 5- 15- 1990 ) M ON R OE, W IS ., C OD E § 2-12-3 ( em p ha ses ad d ed ). A s th e p rovisi ons w e hav e highlighted attest, the B oard ha s d iscretion to act in som e d iscrete area s a n d i n others is s u b j ec t t o ov er sig h t a n d co n tr ol b y t h e C ity , us u ally thro ugh the Com m on Counci l

. A t i ssue here i s s ubsecti o n ( B) o fthe o r dinan ce, w hi chg i ve s th e Bo ar d the a u th o r i t y t o o v e r s e e th e a c t i o n s o f th e C e n t e r ’ s e m-12 N o. 10

- 1300 plo yee s

— subj ect, however, t o p ol i ci es setbythe City

. T h e C om m on Counci l ’ s e xpli ci t r ete nti on o ful ti m ate pol i cym aking autho ri ty is ke y; i t co nfi rm s that when the Boa rd r evi ew ed Derr i ckso n’s deci si on, i t w as not ac t in g w ith fina l p olic ym ak in g a u th or ity
. Se ePe m b aur, 475 U

. S. at48 3. Fi nal l y, the Board’ s s tr u c tu re sugg est s that i t doe s no t m ake fi n al p olicy f orthe City

. A l though a cr eature of m uni ci pal l aw, th e Bo ar d i s no t a su bc o m m i tt ee of the Comm o n Co unc i l

. Ofi ts nine mem bers , o nl y o ne is a lso a m em b er of th e C ou n c il. M ON R OE , W IS ., C OD E § 2

- 12 -1(A )2. U p to th r e e m a y be n on re sid en ts of th e C ity , i d. § 2

- 1 2

- 1 ( A) 1 , a nd a l l mus t “ s e r v e wi tho ut s a l a r y o r othe r com pensati on, ” i d. § 2- 12- 1( B). In s hor t, the Board i s a smal l g r o up o fc i ti ze n v o l unt eers tas k ed wi thg ui di ng the Ce nt e r ’ s a c t i v i t i e s , n ota n a dmi ni s t r a t i v e b o dy charg ed w i th m aking fi nal pol i cy f orthe C i ty. Because nei ther D er ri ckso n northe Board were exer ci si ng fi nal po l i c y ma k i ng a ut ho r i ty when t he y i m po se d a nd ap p ro ve d th e e x p u lsio n ord er , th e C ity ca n n otbe liab le und er§ 1983 f orthei r acti ons. To the exte nt thatM i l est one’s cl ai m s a re pre m i sed o n the Code i tse l f, however, a differ ent a nal ysi s a pp l i es. T he M onroe Com m on C ou nc ilem p ow ered the B oard to m ak e ru les for t h e Se n ior C en te r. See id

. § 2- 12- 3 ( C) (“T h e s en ior c itiz en ’s b oa rd is em p ow er ed an d d ire c te d

. . . [t ]o adop t rules an d regulations to p rom ote th e pu rpo s e s f o r wh i c h the b o a r d h a s b e e n c r e a t e d. ” )

. T he Co de ofCondu ct, tho ugh n ot prom ulg ate d by the Com m on Council, i s ci ty policy forpurposes o fm unici pal l i abi l i ty und er§ 1983

.N o. 10

- 1300 13

In th is kind of Fi rs t Am endm ent cl aim , Suprem e Court 3 doctri ne c al l s f or s t ri c t eror l oos erj udi c i al s c ru t i ny de pen di ng on the na t ur e ofthe “for um ” i n whi c h the r eg u lations appl y. I n a tradi t i ona l publ i c f or um , gove rn m en t al r es t ri c t i ons on sp eech ge t strict s cru tiny ; r eg u lation s m u st be na rro w ly ta ilo re d to ser v e a co m p el lin g g o v er n m en ta l in te re st. Go o d Ne ws C l ub v. M i l

f or d C ent
. Sch. , 5 3 3 U .S. 98 , 1 0 6 (20 0 1 ); C hrist i an Lega l S oc’y v. Wal ker, 453 F. 3d 853, 86 5 ( 7th Cir

. 2006)

. Trad it ional pu blic f ora

— l i ke s t re et s , s i dewal ks , an d par ks

— are p u b lic pl ac es thatha ve t ra di t i ona l l y be enope n f or al l m ann erof co n sti tu tio n a lly p ro te ct ed sp ee ch

. C hrist i an Lega l Soc’y v. M arti n ez , 13 0 S. C t
. 2 9 71 , 29 84 n.11 (201 0). Strict scru tiny also appl i es t o r eg ul at i ons i n a d esi gna t ed publ i c f or um , whi c h the gove rn m en tc re at es wheni t“de s i gna t es ” o r ope ns a t ra di t i ona lly n o n p u b l i c fo ru m for p u b lic d isc o u rs e. Wal ker, 453 F. 3d at 86 5. A lim ited p u b lic f or u m ( som etim es call e d a “n on p u b lic f or um ”) i s a p lace the gove rn m en tha s ope ne d onl y f or speci fic purp oses or s ub j ect s; s peech re st ri ct ions i n a l im it ed p u b lic f orum need only be view point- neutral and reaso n a b le in lig h t o f th e p u r p o s e s er v ed b y th e fo ru m . Id

. at 865- 66 & n.2. M i l e s t o ne ’ s F i r s tAmen dme ntc ha l l e nge t o the Co de i ts el f co ns i st s o f two di st i nc t ar g um en ts
. F i rst, sh e cl ai m s th atthe Co de i m per m i ss ibl y di sc r i m i na te s among spe akers ba se d o n the i r v i ewpo i nt
. S ec o nd, s he c o nte n d s the Code i s o verbro ad i n that i t chi l l s t oo m uch pr o te cted spee ch

. Re g ar di ngthe fi r sta r g um en t, the parti es spend consi derabl e en er gy debati ng how to cl as si fy the S en i o r Ce nt erunde r Fi rst Am en dm en t f or um anal ysi s. W hat i s di sposi ti ve here, ho w eve r, i s no t 3 the nature ofthe f or u m but the nature ofthe re gul ati on14 N o. 10

- 1300 i n que st ion. I fthe Code i s a co ntent- neutra l “t i m e, pl ace, or m an n er ” re gu lat ion , i t c an su rv ive as a re a s on ab le exer ci se ofg overnm entalautho ri ty, r ega rdl ess o fwh i ch sp ee c h -for u m ca te go ry ap p lies

. Fri sb y v. Schultz , 487 U .S. 474, 48 1 (1 98 8); O vadal v. Ci ty of M adi s on, Wis. , 41 6 F.3d 531 , 536-37 (7th C ir. 2005). The C ode co ntai ns a m i ssi on s tat em ent, se ver alo bj ect i v e s , a nd n i ne p r o v i s i o ns c o mpr i s i ngthe a c t ua l “ Co de o fCo nduc t. ” ( W e ha ve a tt ac he d a c o m pl et e co py o fthe C od e in the ap p en d ix to this opin ion.) Th e C od e is gen eral l y a i m ed at c on du c t not spe ec h , bu t t h re e o f its p ro visi o ns a r g uabl y t o uchu p on s pee cho r e xpr es si o n: the re quir em ent tha t patr ons tr eatev er yone with r espect and courtes y; the pr ohibi ti on a gainst abusi ve, vul gar, o r demea ni ngl anguag e; a nd the r equi r ementtha t pat r o ns tr eatCent er p er sonnelwith r espect
. I n M i l est one’ s v i ew th e s e p ro vis ion s a re vie w p oin t-b as ed reg u lat ion s in th atthe y s ubj ec t an y pe r so n w ho d i sa g r ee s wi ththe d irector’s dec isi ons to p erm an en t ej ection from the C en ter. W e di sag re e. “Gove rnm ent r egul ati on o fexpressi ve acti vi ty i s co ntent neutra l so l ong as it i s ‘justified wi th

out re fer ence to the c onte nt o fthe re gul ate d speech. ’ ” Wa rd v. R o ckA ga inst R a cism , 49 1 U .S. 7 81, 79 1 ( 1989 ) ( quo ting C lark v. Cm ty. forC rea tive Non-Violence, 468 U

. S. 28 8, 29 3 ( 1984 ) )

. That i s, “[ a] r egul ati on that s er ves pu rp os es u n re lat ed to th e c o n t e n t o f ex p re ss ion is d ee m ed n eu tr al, eve n i fi t has an inci dental effect on s om e s peaker s o r m essage s but not othe rs . ” Id. T he Co de ’ s mi s s i o n s t a tem ent a nd o bj ecti ves m ake i t cl earthatthe p u rp ose o f th e Code i s co m pl et ely unr el at ed to th e co nt en t of anyN o. 10

- 1300 15 spe ak er ’ s m es sa g e. Ra th erthan f o cus i ngo n w hat th e Cen te r ’ s pat r o ns s ay, the Co de f o cus es o n t hem ann e r in w h ich th ey sa y it. N ot h in g in th e C od e p ro vid es a b as is for p un ishing p atron s for d isagreein g w ith oth er visi tors or the C en ter staff. Eve n in a t r adi ti o na l pub l i c f o r um wher e r es tr i ct i o ns on s peech ar e v i ew ed w i th gr eat estsuspi ci on , co ntentne ut r alt i m e, pl ac e, o r manne r r egul at i ons a r e co ns ti tu
t i o na l l y a c c e pt a b l e if theyar e nar ro w l y t ai l or ed to achi eve a si gni fi cant gov er nm entali nter estand l eave o pena m ple a l te r na ti ve c ha nne l s o fc o m m uni ca ti o n. F risb y, 48 7 U .S. at 4 81 ; O vadal, 41 6 F

. 3d at5 36

- 37

. The Code ofCondu ct m eet s these re quir em ents. F i r s t, th e C o d e ’ s s t a t e d p u r p o s e i s t o e s t a b l i s h a “ ‘ h o me aw ay f ro m hom e’ ” f orvi si tor s t o the S eni orCenter, an en vi r o nm en t tha t i s “ po si ti ve , ” “dy na m i c, ” an d “ pl ea sa nt an d upb ea t. ” Con si der i ngthe s pec i fi c cl i en te l e th e Se ni orCenterse rv es, we thi nk thi s qual i fi es as a s i gni fi cant g o ve r nm en ta l i nt er es t. By a na l o g y, i n St oke s v. City of M adi s on , 930 F .2 d 1 1 6 3, 1170 -71 (7th C ir. 1991), w e u p h eld an am p lifie d s o u n d res tr ict ion on a m all adj a c e ntt o a l ib r a r y, r e c o g ni z i ngtha tthe Ci t y ’ s i nt er est i n m ai ntai ni ng a quie t l ibra ryenvi ro nm ent a nd pro te ct i ngl ibr ar y us er s f r o m un want ed no i se j us ti fi ed th e r es tr i ct i o n. S i m i l ar l y he r e, th e Ci ty ’ s i nt er es t i n pr o te ct i ng the pat ro ns o fthe Sen ior Centerfro m vul gar, abusi ve l angu age and dis re spectful ordem eani ng tr eat m ent b y othe r patro ns j usti fi es these pro vi si ons. The Code al so sat i sfi es the nar ro w t ai l or i ng r equi re m ent. I n “ti m e, pla ce, or m anner” case s, “nar ro w ta i l or i ng” does not m ean that the go vern m en t m ust use “the l eas t16 N o. 10

- 1300

r e s t r i c t i v e o r l e a s ti nt r us i v e me a ns ” t o a chi ev e i t s e nd ; ra ther, in thi s co ntext “ the r equi re m ent o fnar ro w tai l or i ng i s sati sfi ed ‘ so l ong as the .

. . r egul ati on p ro m ot es a su b st an tia l gov er n m en t in te r e s t th at w ou ld be achi eve d l ess effecti vel y absent the r egul ati on. ’ ” Wa rd, 491 U .S. a t 798- 99 ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Al b e r t i ni, 47 2 U

. S. 675, 689 (19 85)). Ru les requ iring the C en ter’s visi tors to treat oth ers w ith resp ect an d to refrain from vulgar, abusi ve l an g ua g e ea si l y s at i sfy thi s st an dar d. The Ci ty’s i nter esti n m ai ntai ni n g a h ospi tabl e pl ace f orse ni or ci ti zens to gather w oul d be s er i ousl y und er m i ned abse nt bas i c ci vi l i ty re quir em ents. F i n a l l y, th e Co d e l e a v e s o p e n a mp l e c h a n n e l s o fc o mm u n ica tio n . Re gu lat ion s m ay fail th is p ar t o ft h e an aly sis w hen theypre vent speake rs from r eachi ng the i r tar get au d ien c es . We i nb e rg v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 31 0 F

. 3d 1029 , 1040 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)

. T h e Code preve nts S eni orCenter pat r o ns fr o m y e l l i nga to the r s o r u s i ngab us i ve l anguage , but i t does not prohibi t re spectfu l d i sag re em en t o r in h ibit co m p lain ts . Th is i s h ar d ly a ca se in w h ich a sp ea ke r’s “ ‘ab ility to co m m u n ica te effe c tiv ely is thre ate ned. ’ ” Id. at 1042 ( quoti ng City Coun ci l v. Taxpaye rs f orVinc e nt, 46 6 U.S

. 78 9, 81 2 ( 1984 ) )

. A ccor dingl y, the Code passes const i tuti onal m uster as a con tentne ut r ala nd r ea so nabl e ti m e, pl ac e, o r manne r r egul at i o n. O ur con clusion on th is point also bears on M il eston e’s c laim th at th e C od e is im p er m iss ibly ov erb ro ad in vio lat ion of th e F irs t A m en d m en t. Se eGr ayne d v . C ity of R o ck fo rd, 40 8 U

. S. 104, 114- 21 ( 1972 ) ( rej ecting o verbre adth claim w he re ordina nc e w as reason able restrictio n , narrow ly tailor ed to furt he r si gn ificant g o vern m en tal i nt er-N o. 10

- 1300 17
est s)

. “[ A ] n ove rbr oad st atute m ust rea ch a ‘ s ub s t ant i al nu mbe r o f i mpe r mi s s ib l e a pp l i c a t i o ns ’ b e f o r e i tm ay be consi dered f aci al l y inval i d.” U nited Sta tes v. Fletch er, 63 4 F. 3d 395, 40 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( quoti ng N e w Y o r kv. Ferber, 45 8 U. S

. 747, 7 71 ( 19 82 ) ). A s we ha ve e xpl aine d, the C od e re gu lat es p u b lic d ist u rb a n c e s an d is n ar ro w ly tail or ed to further the City ’ s si gni fi cant i nter es t in ensuring tha t the Centerrem ai ns a w el com i ng and peace ful pla ce forse ni orci ti zens to gather. The Cod e d oe s no t al l ow p unis hm ent b as ed o n vi ew poi nt o r prohibi t r espectful cri ti ci sm o r disa gr eem ent. Fi nal l y, M i l est one m ake s a due-pr oce ss voi d-f or - vaguen es s claim

. A law is un c on st itu tio n ally va gu e if it fails to s uffi ci en tly de fi ne the c o nduc t i t pr o hibi ts; th e po i nt ofvagueness doctr i ne i s t o perm i t ind i vi du al s t o conf or m thei r cond u c t to the l aw ’ s r equi re m ents and to guar d a gainst arbi tr ar y or disc ri m i natory enf or cem ent. G ray ned , 40 8 U .S

. a t 1 08 -09 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i m i t r ov , 54 6 F. 3d 409, 41 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. The Code ofC on d u c t is a poorfi t with thi s doct rine be cause i t i s jus t a set ofr ule s ofdecor um f orthe Se ni orCenter ; i t i s nei thera sta tute noran o rdi nance, an d vio l ati ons do not re sul t in ar re st, i ncarc er at ion, o r eve n a fi ne. W here the penal ti es f or noncom pli ance a re l ess se ve re, a hi gh l eve l o fcl ar i ty ge n er ally is n otreq u ire d

. Se eGr e s ham v. Pe t e rs on , 22 5 F. 3d 899, 90 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)

. Ind ee d, M i l est one poi nts t o no ca se i n w hi ch a si m i l arl oca l r ule was i nv al i dated on va gueness gr ounds. To the e xt e nttha ta nya na l o g y c a n be draw n, the Co de i s a ki n to st atute s pro hibi ti ng di sr up ti ve n ois es , s e e, e . g. , G ray ned , 40 8 U .S. at 10 7-1 4, d iso rd er l y co n d u c t, s e e, e . g. ,18 N o. 10

- 1300

The or di nan c e at is s ue i n G rayn ed v. C i ty of R ockford, 408 U.S

. 4 1 0 4 , 1 0 7

- 0 8 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pr ov i de d: “[ N ] o pe rs on, whi l e on publ i c or pr i vat e gr ounds adj ac en t to any bui l di ng i n whic h a s c hoo l or any c l as s the re ofis in s es s i on, s hal l wil ful l y m ake or as s i s ti n the m aki ng o f any no ise or diversi on w hich disturbs or t ends to disturb the p eac e or go od ord er o f suc h sc h o ol session or cla ss th er eo f .

. . .” O vadal, 41 6 F .3d at5 3 5

- 3 6 , d ist u rb in g t h e p ea c e, s e e, e . g. , U n i ted S ta tes v. Wo o da rd, 376 F.2d 136 , 140-42 (7th C ir. 1967 ) , o r abusi ve perso nal behav i orag ai nst o ther s, such as “ag gr ess i ve panhand l i ng, ” see Gres ham , 22 5 F

. 3d at 908- 09 ( ci ti ng ca ses )

. A l l o fthes e l aw s withsto od vaguen ess ch al l en g es . I n G ray ned , f or ex a m p le, the Su p rem e C ou rt l oo ked to th e ordi nance i tse l fand i ts pream bl e t o concl ud e that i t prohibi ted, i n cl eareno ugh te rm s, “del iber ate l y no i sy ordi ver sio naryact i vi ty that disr up ts or i s about to disr up t no rm alscho olact i vi ti es. ” 40 8 U.S

. at 4 1 1 0

- 1 1

. S i mi l a r l y h e r e , the Co de p r o hib i t s di s r upti ve behavi orthati nter fer es w ith otherpatr ons’ abi l i ty to us e the Senior Cen ter for its int en d ed pu rp ose. A perso n of re as on ab le in te llige n c e w ou ld u n d er st a n d th is m ea n in g. Gres ham , 22 5 F

. 3d at9 08 ( “La ws mustc o nt ain a
‘ re aso nabl e degr ee of c lar i ty’ so thatpeopl e o f‘ com m on i nt el l i g en ce ’ c anunde r st an d thei r mean i ng . ” ( quo ting R o berts v . U nited S ta tes Jay cees , 46 8 U. S

. 6 09 , 6 29 ( 19 84 ) ) )

. To th e e xt e nt the Co de i s s ubj e c t t o v a g ue ne s s a na l y s i s at al l, i t i s no t unconst i tuti onal l y v ague. A FFI RMED .N o. 10

- 1300 19 A p p en d ix

— Sen i orCenterCode ofCond uct

MI S S I O N S T AT E MENT The Behri ng S eni orCentero fM onr oe i s a “ho m e a w ay f r o m ho m e” , no t ne g at i ve a nd de fea te d, b utpo si ti ve a nd d yn am ic, loo kin g for th e b rig h te r th in gs in life. I t i s a pl ace w here S eni orCi ti zens have the o pp or tuni ty

to m ee t o n a loc al lev el. The Ce nt erwi l l o ffert o M o nr o e, the s ur r o undi ng area an d out-of-tow n gu ests, recreation, edu cation, i nform at i o n, s o ci als er vi ce s an d he al ths er vi ce s an d encour age se rv i ce t o fel l ow ci ti zens and the co m m unity in ge n er al.
OBJ ECTI VE 1. To f ost erpri de an d r es p ect i n the Behri ng S eni or Cen ter ofM o nr o e f ac i l i ty, a l o ngwi tha l l e qui pm en t an d fur ni sh i ng s th er e i n. 2. To k ee p the Be hri ng S en i o r Ce nt ere nv i r o nm en t ple asantand upbeat a t a l l ti m es. 3. To c re ate a “hom e a w ay f ro m hom e” atm ospher e for allw ho com e to the C en ter. 4. To pr o vi de se r vi ce s, a ss i st an ce a nd suppo r t t o a ny o ne 55 years of age or ol d er. 5. To pro m ot e exem pla ryper sonalhabi ts and cl eanl i ness. 6

. T o c r e a t e S e ni o r c r e d ib i l i t y a n d i n t e g r i t y i n th e c o mm unity.20 N o. 10

- 1300 COD E O F CO NDUCT 1. W h en in t h e B eh rin g Se n ior C en te r of M on ro e, all w ill be t reate d w i th r espectand cour tes y r ega rdl ess o f age, r ace or gen d er. 2. U se of ab u siv e, vu lga r, or d em ea n in g la n gu ag e is pr o hib i t e d. 3

. Any p hy s i c a l l y thr e a t e ningc o nd uc ti s p r o hib i t e d. 4

. M e mbe rs ofthe Be hr i ngS e ni o r Ce nt e r s t a ff, o ut s i de i nstr uctor s a nd Gree n County per sonnelw i l l be treated i n a resp ectfu l m an ne r. 5
. Th i e v e r y i n a nyf o r m wi l l n o tb e t o l e r a t e d. 6

. Th e p o s s e s s i o n o r u s e o fa l c o ho l, i l l i c i t dr ug s o r we a po ns o fa nyk i nd i s s t r i c t l y p r o hib i t e d. 7. The Be hr i ngSen iorCe nt eri s a no n- smok i nge nv i r o nm ent. 8. A tt en tio n to p er so n al h yg ien e is ex p ec te d an d ap p re c iated by allw ho u se th e cen ter. 9. Vio l ati ons ofthis c od e o fco nd uct wil l be acte d up on by the S eni orCenterst affo r Board o fDir ecto rs .

11- 21- 11