Wymore v. City of Cedar Rapids

635 F.Supp.3d 706

Kevin WYMORE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA and Tiffany O'Donnell, Mayor of the City of Cedar Rapids,Iowa in her individual and official capacities, Defendants.

No. 22-CV-66 CJW-KEM

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division

Signed October 13, 2022

Alan Ostergren, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

Patricia Gale Kropf, City of Cedar Rapids City Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

C.J. Williams, United States District Judge

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND . . . 710

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD . . . 711

III. ANALYSIS . . . 712

A. Irreparable Harm . . . 712

1. Arguments . . . 712

2. Applicable Law . . . 713

3. Analysis . . . 713

B. Balance of Harms . . . 714

1. Arguments . . . 714

2. Applicable Law . . . 714

3. Analysis . . . 714

C. Likelihood of Success on the Merits . . . 715

1. Arguments . . . 715

2. Applicable Law . . . 715

3. Analysis . . . 716

a. Standing . . . 716

b. Equal Protection Violation . . . 717

D. Public Interest . . . 720

1. Arguments . . . 720

2. Applicable Law . . . 720

3. Analysis . . . 720

IV. CONCLUSION . . . 721

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 6). Defendants timely resisted (Doc. 15), and plaintiff timely replied (Doc. 16). The Court held oral argument on October 4, 2022, during which the Court ordered supplemental briefing. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff submitted supplemental briefing on October 4, 2022. (Doc. 18). Defendants submitted their supplemental briefing on October 7, 2022. (Doc. 19).

I. BACKGROUND

The Court's factual findings are based on plaintiff's complaint and the parties' sworn declarations and exhibits submitted in support of their positions. The Court's factual findings here are provisional and not binding in future proceedings. See Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981) ("[F]indings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court granting a preliminary injunction are not binding at trial on the merits[.]") (citations omitted); SEC v. Zahareas, 272 F.3d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir. 2001) (same). Affidavits submitted at the preliminary injunction phase need not meet the requirements of affidavits under Rule 56(c)(4), but courts may consider the "competence, personal knowledge and credibility of the affiant" in determining the weight to give the evidence. Bracco v. Lackner, 462 F. Supp. 436, 442 n.3 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (citing 11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2949). The Court will discuss additional facts as they become relevant to its analysis.

On February 9, 2021, the City of Cedar Rapids adopted an ordinance that established an independent Citizen Review Board ("the Board") to oversee certain police interactions within the community. (Docs. 6-1, at 4; 6-2). The ordinance includes provisions related to the membership requirements of the Board that, among other things, requires the Board to consist of a majority of minorities. In relevant part, Section 74.02(A)(1) provides:

(A) The Cedar Rapids Citizen Review Board is hereby created. The CRB will consist of nine (9) voting members appointed by the Mayor with input from and the approval of the City Council. Members of the CRB will serve without compensation, and be chosen to broadly represent the diversity of the City by way of, including but not limited to, cultural, gender, and geographic diversity.

(1) Voting members will be selected in conformance with the following:

a. The overall membership of the CRB will include a minimum of five (5) voting members who identify as people of color.

b. The Mayor shall appoint members of the CRB, with advice and consent from the City Council, according to the following, some combination of which will also conform to the composition standard in section 74.02(A)(1)(a):

i. Three (3) voting members will be selected from applications submitted by the general public;

ii. One (1) voting member will be an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Iowa, although this member may not serve as legal counsel for the CRB;

iii. Three (3) voting members will be selected from applications submitted by individuals who are employed by, or active volunteers in a group with a designation pursuant to Iowa Code Section 501(c)(3) (2020), as amended from time to time, and that is focused on advocacy of, and racial justice for, underrepresented citizens of Cedar Rapids, including, but not limited to: NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens), Iowa Asian Alliance, ASJ (Advocates for Social Justice), United We March Forward, with a limit of one (1) member per organization; and

iv. Two (2) voting members will be appointed by the Mayor from nominees who are employed by, or are active volunteers in, one of the following service providers in Cedar Rapids: United Way, a United Way funded service provider, NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness), or another service provider or company that works with underrepresented segments of the population in the areas of mental health, physical health, homelessness, food insecurity, or similar social issues.

Section 74.02(A)(1) (emphasis added).

Within the ordinance, defendants provide eight interests the ordinance purportedly serves:

(1) To ensure fair and professional law enforcement that is constitutional, effective, and responsive to the standards, values, and needs of those to be served; (2) To ensure investigations into claims of inappropriate conduct by sworn police officers are conducted in a manner that is fair, thorough, and accurate; (3) To provide review of police investigations into citizen complaints; (4) To ensure accountability with respect to complaints of officer misconduct; (5) To ensure public safety accountability, bolster confidence in police, increase and improve public cooperation, and make our community safer for everyone; (6) To assist in identifying and analyzing trends in policing whose origins may be rooted in bias or other systematic phenomena, and upon discovery of these trends, to assist the City and Cedar Rapids Police Department (hereinafter referred to as the "CRPD") in developing solutions to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of citizens; (7) To increase citizens' understanding of law enforcement policies, procedures, and operations through additional transparency created through the complaint and investigations review process; and (8) To create an additional conduit for communication between the CRPD and the Cedar Rapids community through outreach to community and law enforcement.

(Doc. 15-1, at 7) (emphasis added, as defendants emphasized this interest in their brief at Doc. 15-1, at 4-5).

Plaintiff, who is white, states that on two separate occasions, he applied for membership on the Board and was not selected. (Doc. 6-1, at 7). Plaintiff first applied at an unspecified time while Mayor Brad Hart was in office, and he was not chosen. (Id.). Upon encountering Mayor Hart at a function, plaintiff asked the mayor why plaintiff was not chosen for the Board, to which Mayor Hart allegedly responded that there were "only a few spots for the general public." (Id.). Plaintiff understood Mayor Hart's statement to mean that plaintiff was not considered for the five positions reserved for People of Color because plaintiff is white. (Id.). Plaintiff then applied a second time in January 2022 when two vacancies opened but was not chosen because Mayor O'Donnell believed plaintiff had no experience working with or volunteering with organizations who serve underserved populations.¹ (Id., at 7-8).

On September 6, 2022, plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff seeks an injunction only for the ordinance provision ("the Provision") requiring a threshold number of People of Color to serve as members, Section 74.02(A)(1)(a). (Doc. 6).

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD

Plaintiff seeks to prevent the enforcement of a Cedar Rapids ordinance, Section 74.02(A)(1)(a), during the pendency of litigation. (Doc. 6). To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, a party must establish: "(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other party litigants; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest." Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981); Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Couns., Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). The movant bears the burden of establishing the propriety of a preliminary injunction. Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995). "[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) (emphasis original) (quoting 11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2948 (2d ed. 1995)). "[T]he burden on the movant is heavy, in particular where . . . 'granting the preliminary injunction will give [the movant] substantially the relief it would obtain after a trial on the merits.' " United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 1998) (second alteration in original) (quoting Sanborn Mfg. Co. v. Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co., 997 F.2d 484, 486 (8th Cir. 1993)).

III. ANALYSIS

As a preliminary matter, plaintiff asserts the balance of harms and the public interest merge when the defendant is a government actor (Doc. 6-1, at 13), but the Court will assess them separately under Dataphase, as that is the standard for a preliminary injunction.² See Parents Defending Educ. v. Linn-Mar Community School Dist., No. 22-CV-78 CJW-MAR, 629 F.Supp.3d 891, 904 n.1 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 20, 2022).

Because the...