Page 1 – ANSWER

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

(503) 823-4047

DAVID LANDRUM, Oregon State Bar ID Number 955425

Senior Deputy City Attorney

Email: david.landrum@portlandoregon.gov

DANIEL SIMON, OSB No. 124544

Assistant Deputy City Attorney

Email: dan.simon@portlandoregon.gov

Office of City Attorney

1221 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 430

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: (503) 823-4047

Facsimile: (503) 823-3089

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

JOSEPH WALSH,

PLAINTIFF,

v.

BRYANT ENGE, CHARLIE HALES, 

CITY OF PORTLAND,

DEFENDANTS.

3:15-cv-01666 SI

ANSWER

For their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants Bryan Enge (“Enge”), Charles 

Hales (“Mayor Hales”) and City of Portland (“City”) admit, deny and allege as follows:

1. Defendants deny each and every material allegation of Plaintiff’s Complaint not 

expressly admitted herein.

2. Defendants admit the identification of the Parties contained in Section 1 “Parties” 

of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendants further affirmatively allege that Defendant Bryant Enge is 

employed as the appointed (as distinct from elected) Director of the Internal Business Services 

Division of the City of Portland, Oregon’s Office of Management and Finance; Charles Hales is 

the duly elected Mayor of the City of Portland.

Case 3:15-cv-01666-SI Document 16 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 – ANSWER

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

(503) 823-4047

3. Defendants admit the allegations as to jurisdiction contained in Section II 

“Jurisdiction” of Plaintiff’s Complaint, to the effect that the United States District Court for the 

District of Oregon has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s sole Claim for Relief under 28 USC §1331 

(“Federal Question”). Defendants deny any other allegations contained in Section II 

“Jurisdiction” of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

4. With respect to the handwritten paragraph beneath “III. STATEMENT OF 

CLAIMS; Claim I” at page 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint:

(a) Defendants admit the allegation contained in the handwritten paragraph 

beneath “III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS; Claim I” at page 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, to 

the extent that Plaintiff Walsh has been “excluded” from City Council meetings and from 

City buildings on multiple occasions because of his conduct in those meetings and 

buildings, most recently on July 15, 2015 through the mechanism of the letter attached to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Attachment #1;” 

(b) Defendants admit that the letter dated July 7, 2015 from Enge to Walsh, a 

copy of which is identified as “Attachment #1” to Plaintiff’s Complaint, was handdelivered to Plaintiff on July 15, 2015;

(c) Defendants deny the allegations contained in the handwritten paragraph 

beneath “III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS; Claim I” at page 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

regarding the motivation of Defendants Enge and Hales; 

(d) Defendants admit the allegations contained in the handwritten paragraph 

beneath “III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS; Claim I” at page 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, to 

the extent that Defendant Enge’s authority to exclude Plaintiff Walsh as described in the 

letter attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Attachment #1” is delegated by Portland City 

Code 5.36.115; Mayor Hales is the Commissioner in Charge of the City’s Office of 

Management and Finance.

Case 3:15-cv-01666-SI Document 16 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 – ANSWER

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

(503) 823-4047

(e) Defendants deny any other allegations contained in “III. STATEMENT 

OF CLAIMS; Claim I” of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

5. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the handwritten paragraph beneath 

“Claim II” at page 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

6. Defendants deny that Plaintiff Walsh is entitled to the relief described in the 

handwritten paragraph beneath “IV. RELIEF” at page 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

(Failure to State a Claim)

7. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the 

following particulars:

(a) Plaintiff was not excluded from any City Council meeting because of any

point of view or opinion expressed by the content of his speech. See Houston v. Yoncalla 

Sch. Dist. No. 32, No. 6:13-CV-01318-AA, 2015 WL 413803, at *2 (D. Or. Jan. 29, 

2015), citing Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 975 (9th Cir.2010) (Kozinski, J., 

concurring), cert denied, 2011 WL 4530331 (Oct. 3, 2011) (“A council can regulate ... 

the content of speech—as long as content-based regulations are viewpoint neutral and 

enforced that way.”); Galena v. Leone, 638 F.3d 186, 197 (3rd Cir.2011) (“though the 

First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression is not inviolate, when a public 

official excludes a citizen from a public meeting, the official must not be acting in 

violation of that amendment.”); see also Osborne v. City of Burns, Or., No. 2:11-CV00080-SU, 2012 WL 930815, at *4 (D. Or. Feb. 27, 2012) report and recommendation 

adopted, No. 2:11-CV-00080-SU, 2012 WL 930234 (D. Or. Mar. 19, 2012), citing White 

v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir.1990) (A city official is not entitled to prevent 

an individual from attending a city council meeting that is open to the public unless the 

Case 3:15-cv-01666-SI Document 16 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 – ANSWER

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

(503) 823-4047

person disturbs the meeting); Norwalk, 900 F.2d at 1425 (In the Ninth Circuit, a city 

council meeting that is open to the public constitutes a “limited public forum” for First 

Amendment purposes); Norse, 629 F.3d at 979 (“[e]ven in a limited public forum like a 

city council meeting, the First Amendment tightly constrains the government's power; 

speakers may be removed only if they are actually disruptive.”); Norse, 629 F.3d at 976 

(reading Norwalk to require actual disturbance); see also Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent 

Control Bd., 67 F.3d 266, 271 (9th Cir.1995) (limitations on speech at such meetings 

“must be reasonable and content neutral, but that is all they need to be.”); see also Minn. 

State Bd. for Cmty. Colls. v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 283, 104 S.Ct. 1058, 79 L.Ed.2d 299 

(1984) (“The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be 

heard by public bodies making decisions of policy.)

(b) Plaintiff’s sole claim for relief is moot, because the exclusion he 

challenges expired, by its own terms, on September 15, 2015.

(c) Plaintiff Walsh lacks standing to represent the interests of any person or 

group of persons other than himself. Dean v. Jones, No. CV 09-1102-AC, 2010 WL 

1873089, at *3 (D. Or. Mar. 2, 2010) report and recommendation adopted, No. 09-CV1102-AC, 2010 WL 1838962 (D. Or. Apr. 30, 2010) (Judge Acosta) (“Parties may plead 

and conduct their own cases personally in all courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C. 

§1654 (2009).”); (“It is well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se

provided by §1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or 

entities.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir.2008). Similarly, 

the representative of a class cannot appear pro se. A litigant simply cannot “fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class.” Williams v. Boardman, No. 1:10–cv–

00038–AWI–SMS PC, 2010 WL 367794 at *1 (E.D.Cal. Jan.27, 2010) (quoting 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4); Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th 

Case 3:15-cv-01666-SI Document 16 Filed 10/16/15 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 – ANSWER

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

(503) 823-4047

Cir.2000)). See also Martinez v. Peters, No. 6:13-CV-00384-PK, 2013 WL 5536948, at 

*1 (D. Or. Mar. 22, 2013) aff'd, No. 6:13-CV-00384-PK, 2013 WL 5536945 (D. Or. Oct. 

7, 2013), leave to appeal denied (Jan. 14, 2014).

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants pray that 

Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in their favor and for their costs 

and disbursements incurred herein, in addition to such other relief as may be justified.

Dated: October 16, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David Landrum

DAVID LANDRUM, OSB # 955425

Senior Deputy City Attorney

DANIEL SIMON, OSB No. 124544

Assistant Deputy City Attorney

Telephone: (503) 823-4047

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 3:15-cv-01666-SI Document 16 Filed 10/16/15 Page 5 of 6
Page 1 – CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204

(503) 823-4047

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served the foregoing ANSWER on:

Joseph F. Walsh

7348 SE Division Street

Portland, OR 97206

Plaintiff-Pro Se

on October 16, 2015, by causing a full, true and correct copy thereof, addressed to the lastknown address (or fax number) of said attorney, to be sent by the following method(s):

by mail in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, and deposited with the U.S. Postal 

Service in Portland, Oregon.

by hand delivery.

by email pursuant to LR 5-2(b).

by facsimile transmission.

by email.

/s/ David Landrum

DAVID LANDRUM, OSB #955425

Senior Deputy City Attorney

DANIEL SIMON, OSB No. 124544

Assistant Deputy City Attorney

Telephone: (503) 823-4047

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 3:15-cv-01666-SI Document 16 Filed 10/16/15 Page 6 of 6