Grant v. City of Phila.

637 F.Supp.3d 247

Michael GRANT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-735

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Signed October 20, 2022

Vicki Piontek, Danville, PA, J. Michael Considine, Jr., J. Michael Considine Jr., PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Meghan E. Claiborne, City Solicitor's Office, Philadelphia, PA, Anne B. Taylor, Jonathan Cooper, Kathryn Faris, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant City of Philadelphia.

Kathryn Faris, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, Meghan E. Claiborne, City Solicitor's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants Emile Sauris, Steven Moffitt.

MEMORANDUM RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Baylson, District Judge

This civil action arises from events that took place in Philadelphia's Love Park on December 21, 2019, during the Christmas Village, culminating in the seizure of Plaintiff Michael Grant, also known as "Philly Jesus." Plaintiff has brought various claims under the First and Fourth Amendments against Defendants Emile Sauris and Steven Moffitt, both police officers with the Philadelphia Police Department. Plaintiff also alleges a claim of municipal liability against Defendant City of Philadelphia. Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims. For the following reasons, the Motion will be granted.

I. Relevant Factual Background¹

The facts of this case may remind opera fans of Mozart's The Magic Flute - when the unusually dressed bird catcher Papageno is restrained and muzzled, but soon released.

On December 21, 2019, Plaintiff appeared as "Philly Jesus" at Philadelphia's Love Park, which at the time was location of the Christmas Village. Def.'s SUF ¶ 1; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 1. Plaintiff was at the Christmas Village "dressing up as [his] interpretation of Jesus and keeping the Christ in Christmas at Christmas Village like [he] did every year since 2014." See Mot. Ex. A ("Grant Dep.") at 14:5-20. He was there to "express[ ] [his] religious liberty, [his] freedom of speech, as an American citizen." Id.

Plaintiff was positioned approximately ten (10) feet away from the LOVE sign, in the direction of City Hall, in the southeast quadrant of Love Park. See Def.'s SUF ¶ 2; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 2. Plaintiff stood in the midst of a number of Christmas Village booths containing vendors:

Q: Where were you standing relative to the booths? Like were there booths on your left, booths on your right? Tell me how that was set up.

A: I was surrounded by them in like a sphere, like a circle.

Q: Oaky [sic]. And how far were you - again you can estimate - were you from the nearest booth? How many feet?

A: Like 7, 10 feet.

Grant Dep. 23:9-17.

See also Def.'s SUF ¶ 4; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 4. The Christmas Village was "very, very busy" with "a lot of people around," including families with children. Def.'s SUF ¶¶ 12, 37; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶¶ 12, 37. Some of the vendors expressed concerns about Grant's behavior:

Q: [D]id some people tell you they didn't want you there and they felt that your presence was a problem?

A: Yeah, yeah. They called me a troublemaker. Yeah.

Q: Who called you a troublemaker? Some of the vendors?

A: Yeah. Well, very few, and just, you know, some of the tourists that came to Christmas Village. Some of them think: [t]here's a crazy guy here, you know?

Grant Dep. 28:3-14. See also Def's SUF ¶¶ 7-8; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶¶ 7-8.

Plaintiff, acting alone, spoke to the crowd with an elevated voice, but was not screaming or speaking loudly.² See Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶¶ 3, 5; Grant Dep. 31:18-22; Plaintiff held a stick, and at his feet was a "big" sign that stated, "If you die tonight, are you going to heaven or hell? Come up and ask me." Def.'s SUF ¶ 39; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 39; Grant Dep. 18:4-18. Plaintiff also states that he brought a collection basket with him:

Q: [Did] you have any other items with you?

A: Yeah. I had a basket, like a basket that was made out of like wood and straw. It had like a dollar folded on the crevice of the corner in case someone wanted to throw something in there. I wasn't out there for money, but I kept it there just in case someone wanted to make a donation to my mission.

Q: Like a collection basket?

A: Yeah.

. . .

Q: Did people put money in the basket, typically?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Do you remember on this day around the time when the officers showed up, was there money in that basket beyond the one dollar you had put in?

A: Yes.

Q: Any idea how much?

A: Between [$]50 and $70, estimation-wise.

Grant Dep. 32:2-33:4. See also Def.'s SUF ¶ 9; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 9.

Plaintiff was approached by the police officers on duty at the Christmas Village, Officer Sauris and Officer Moffitt. See Def.'s SUF ¶¶ 13, 32, 39; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶¶ 13, 32. Officer Sauris' "face scrunched up in disgust" upon reading Plaintiff's sign, and he asked Plaintiff to leave Love Park. See Def.'s SUF ¶ 13; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 13. Officer Sauris did not specify why Plaintiff needed to leave, but said "I'm just doing my job, you know." See Def.'s SUF ¶ 14; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 14; Mot. Ex. H ("Sauris Dep.") at 46:5-9. According to Plaintiff, Officer Sauris also said that he knew Grant and called him names, such as "con artist." See Def.'s SUF ¶ 15; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 15; Grant Dep. 41:4-6.

Plaintiff refused to leave and continued talking to Officer Sauris for approximately five (5) to seven (7) minutes before Officer Moffitt arrived. Grant Dep. 40:6-42:10. Plaintiff continued to refuse to leave; the officers cuffed Plaintiff and "dragged" him approximately thirty (30) feet to the outside edge of Love Park. Id. at 41:20-42:6; Def.'s SUF ¶¶ 16-17; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶¶ 16-17. After confirming that Plaintiff had no warrants for his arrest, the officers issued Plaintiff a Citation Violation Notice (CVN) for "failure to disperse" and told him not to return to the spot where they had removed him from. Def.'s SUF ¶¶ 19-21; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶¶ 19-21. Upon receipt of the citation, Plaintiff crumpled the CVN in Officer Sauris' face and threw it in the trash. Grant Dep. 52:15-22; Def.'s SUF ¶ 57; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 57. Plaintiff then immediately returned to the spot within Love Park that the officers had removed him from. Grant Dep. at 52:15-22, 54:24-55:22; Def.'s SUF ¶ 57; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 57.

It is undisputed that recruits receive training at the Police Academy on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to include the First Amendment. Def.'s SUF ¶ 29; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 29. It is also undisputed that Philadelphia police officers receive ongoing training on the First Amendment. See Def.'s SUF ¶ 30; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SUF ¶ 30.

II. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed the instant action on February 7, 2020. See Compl. (ECF 2). Pursuant to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF 55), filed October 5, 2021, Plaintiff alleges the following claims:

1. False arrest, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, pursuant to § 1983, against Officers Sauris and Moffitt (Count I);

2. Violations of the First Amendment, against Officers Sauris and Moffitt, pursuant to § 1983 (Count II); 3. First Amendment retaliation, against Officers Sauris and Moffitt, pursuant to § 1983 (Count III);

4. Declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), as to a ban on solicitation or leafletting in Love Park (Count IV); and

5. Municipal liability, against the City of Philadelphia (Count V)

See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 87-122.

Following significant discovery, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss all claims and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See Order, dated Feb. 24, 2022 (ECF 80). Further discovery ensued, and, on May 12, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims. See Mot. (ECF 101). Plaintiff responded on June 6, 2022, see Resp. (ECF 108), and Defendants replied on June 19, 2022, see Reply (ECF 111).

The Court held oral argument on August 19, 2022, including the parties' response to a number of questions. See Letter, dated August 16, 2022 (ECF 116); Order, dated Aug. 17, 2022 (ECF 120). The Court permitted the parties to submit supplemental briefing following oral argument. See Letter from Plaintiff, dated Aug. 24, 2022 (ECF 125); Letter from Defendants, dated Aug. 29, 2022 (ECF 126).

III. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" when "a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. At summary judgment, the Court's role is " 'to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial,' it is 'not . . . to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter.' " Peroza-Benitez v. Smith, 994 F.3d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Baloga v. Pittston Area Sch. Dist., 927 F.3d 742, 752 (3d Cir. 2019)). The Court should grant summary judgment only if, "constru[ing] all facts and inferences in favor of the nonmoving party," Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410, 419 (3d Cir. 2015), "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party," Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

"Police officers, embodying the authority of the state, are liable under § 1983 when they violate someone's constitutional rights, unless they are protected by qualified immunity." Peroza-Benitez, 994 F.3d at 165. "[Q]ualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma, et al. v. Bond, — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 9, 11, 211 L.Ed.2d 170 (2021) (quoting...