Miller v. Goggin

672 F.Supp.3d 14

John Ryan MILLER, Plaintiff, v. Thomas GOGGIN, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-3329-KSM

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Filed May 5, 2023

John Ryan Miller, Kimberton, PA, Pro Se.

Guy A. Donatelli, John J. Stanzione, Lamb & McErlane, P.C., West Chester, PA, for Defendant John O'Donnell.

Joseph F. Kampherstein, III, Michael B. Pullano, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Wayne, PA, for Debra Ryan.

Jason Confair, Saxton & Stump, LLC, Lancaster, PA, for Brian Fox, John Propper, Michelle Orner.

MEMORANDUM

MARSTON, District Judge

Pro se Plaintiff John Ryan Miller brings this action against dozens of school district officials and law enforcement officers from various localities across southeastern Pennsylvania. (See Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff contends that the Octorara School District's enforcement of its public participation policy, Policy 903, is unconstitutional, and that members of the school board conspired with local public servants to prevent him from speaking at or attending school board meetings. (Id. at 66-93.) Among the named defendants are Defendants Lisa Bowman, Brian Fox, Sam Ganow, Matt Hurley, Charlie Koennecker, Brian Norris, Jared Zimmerman, Lisa Yelovich, John Propper, Michelle Orner, Jill Hardy, and Jeff Curtis (the "Octorara Defendants"); Defendants Thomas Goggin, John O'Donnell, David Sassa, and Robert Dougherty (the "Detective Defendants"); and Defendant Deborah Ryan (collectively, "Defendants").¹ Presently before the Court is the Octorara Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 215, 253), the Detective Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 204), and Defendant Ryan's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 177), by which they seek dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff opposes the motions. (Doc. Nos. 229, 251, 271, 275.)² For the following reasons, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

At this stage, the Court takes as true the facts alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint.³

A. The January 24 Meeting

Plaintiff alleges that he first attended a school board meeting on January 24, 2022 after he had been "engaged by several parents of students enrolled in Octorara School District" to attend the meeting on their behalf and speak during the public comment period. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 38, 72.) According to Plaintiff, "the engagement was related to parental concerns, regarding actions/consequences, resulting from policy enforcement, mandates, guidelines, and other harms which children were experiencing within Octorara School District through their administration and actions through elected School Board members." (Id. at ¶ 38.) Before Plaintiff spoke at the meeting, Octorara School Board President Brian Fox asked Plaintiff to provide his name and residing municipality in compliance with "District Policy 903." (Id. at ¶ 74.)

Policy 903 provides "an opportunity at each open meeting of the Board for residents and taxpayers to comment on matters of concern, official action or deliberation which are or may be before the Board prior to official action by the Board." Octorara Area School District Website, School Board - Policies, "Policy 903 - Public Participation in Board Meetings," https://go.boarddocs.com/pa/octo/Board.nsf/Public# (last visited March 20, 2023) ("Policy 903").⁴ According to Policy 903, there are two opportunities for public comment during board meetings. See id. The first is "usually toward the start of the meeting and is intended for public comment or questions related to posted agenda items." Id. The second is "usually toward the end of the meeting and is intended for public comment or questions on any topic related to district business." Id. Policy 903 states that "the Board will not respond to comments or questions" during these public comment periods, and that the public comment periods are not "designed to be an open discussion with the Board." Id.

Policy 903 also sets out the following guidelines for public comment:

The Board requires that public participants be residents or taxpayers of this district, a parent/guardian of any district student, any district employee, or any district student. Participants must be recognized by the presiding officer and must preface their comments by an announcement of their name and municipality. Each statement made by a participant shall be limited to three (3) minutes duration for a total of thirty (30) minutes per public comment opportunity. All statements shall be directed to the presiding officer; no participant may address or question Board directors individually.

The presiding officer may:

1. Interrupt or terminate a participant's statement when the statement is too lengthy, obscene, or irrelevant.

2. Request any individual to leave the meeting when that person does not observe reasonable decorum.

3. Request the assistance of law enforcement officers to remove a disorderly person when the person's conduct interferes with the orderly progress of the meeting.

4. Call a recess or adjourn to another time when the lack of public decorum interferes with the orderly conduct of the meeting.

5. Waive these rules with the approval of the Board.

Id.

When President Fox asked Plaintiff to provide his name and municipality before proceeding with his public comment at the January 24 meeting, Plaintiff argued that he believed he had "no duty nor obligation to provide the requested information" under the United States Constitution. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 75.) But after some "back-and-forth" with President Fox, he nevertheless provided his name and the fact that he is a Chester County resident in accordance with Policy 903.⁵ (Id. at ¶¶ 75-90.) Plaintiff proceeded to make his public comment, in which he "redress[ed] the board in their collective violation of their sworn duties and oath to the constitution." (Id. at ¶ 80.)

After that meeting, Plaintiff claims that he "obtained a host of public records documents, sent additional notice of warning,[⁶] attempting to reason and correct the mis-statements and mis-representations regarding policy and constitutional rights." (Id. at ¶ 98.) Plaintiff also "sent communication to the Chester County District Attorney" regarding "the unlawful acts perpetrated by the board members." (Id. at ¶ 99.) Plaintiff "attempted to engage the County District Attorney to investigate multiple school districts who allegedly violate citizens' rights through the enforcement of School Board Policy 903." (Id. at ¶ 33.) Plaintiff requested that District Attorney Deborah Ryan "convene a grand jury to hear and review testimony from injured parties, to determine if an investigation was warranted." (Id. at ¶ 34.) He reports that District Attorney Ryan "ignored and subsequently denied" this request, and that "the issues presented to the DA were re-directed to Chester County Detectives." (Id.)

According to Plaintiff, "[t]he District Attorney forwarded the communications to [the] Chester County Detectives Unit, [who] were allegedly directed to open up a case related to Plaintiff's concerns." (Id. at ¶ 100.) Plaintiff emailed with Chester County Detective John O'Donnell, explaining that he believed the Octorara School Board had violated his rights by requiring compliance with Rule 903. (Id. at ¶ 101.) In his correspondence with Chester County law enforcement officials, he explained that he would "seek redress/remedy if Plaintiff's rights were violated further." (Id. at ¶ 104.) To that end, he provided law enforcement with "role-play scenarios, which created a base of expectations and how the Plaintiff would conduct himself if/when Plaintiff could encounter law enforcement" and described "actions [Plaintiff would take] if Plaintiff were to encounter public servants who might violate their oath to their position." (Id. at ¶¶ 102-08.) The Chester County District Attorney's Office, in conjunction with the Chester County Police Department, subsequently circulated Plaintiff's correspondence to other local police departments via email, "with the implication that the Plaintiff's exercise of his constitutional rights is suspicious and allegedly suggest criminal behavior in nature." (Id. at ¶ 109.)

B. The February 14 Meeting

Plaintiff attempted to attend another Octorara School Board meeting on February 14, 2022. (Id. at ¶ 120.) As he pulled into the school parking lot, Plaintiff saw Pennsylvania State Troopers and to avoid any interactions with law enforcement, he "decided to relocate and park his vehicle at an adjacent parking lot." (Id. at ¶ 122.) Plaintiff then walked to the school and began a live video recording as he approached the school entrance. (Id. at ¶¶ 121-23.) Plaintiff encountered the Octorara Junior-Senior High School Principal, John Propper, standing outside the school, who informed him that the meeting had been cancelled.⁷ (Id. at ¶ 126.) After Plaintiff drove away, he claims that he was followed and eventually pulled over by Pennsylvania State Trooper Kevin Kochka.⁸ (Id. at ¶¶ 131-34.) Trooper Kochka told Plaintiff he was pulled over for "investigative purposes" because Plaintiff was "driving a suspicious vehicle," and ordered Plaintiff to exit his vehicle. (Id. at ¶¶ 138-42.) Trooper Kochka informed Plaintiff that he was not free to leave. (Id. at ¶ 142.) Additional unidentified police officers then arrived on the scene. (Id. at ¶ 148.) Plaintiff refused to produce his driver's license for the officers. (Id. at ¶ 150.) Approximately 25 minutes after Plaintiff was pulled over, Plaintiff was released without a citation. (Id. at ¶ 153.)

C. The March 21 Meeting

Plaintiff attended the March 21, 2022 school board meeting and sought to speak during the public comment period.⁹ (Id. at ¶ 159.) But President Brian Fox refused to allow Plaintiff to speak without stating his name and residing municipality, as required by Policy 903. (Id. at ¶ 165.) Plaintiff declined to comply with that requirement, and as he was leaving the meeting, announced that he was "going to call the police and request the...