1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

____________________________________

)

MICHAEL MCCLANAHAN, )

GARY CHAMBERS, and )

EUGENE COLLINS, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) Docket No.

v. )

)

SCOTT WILSON, and ) COMPLAINT

CITY OF BATON ROUGE, )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________________)

Plaintiffs Michael McClanahan, Gary Chambers, and Eugene Collins (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”) allege and complain against Defendants Scott Wilson (in his official capacity) and

the City of Baton Rouge (collectively, “Defendants”), as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Recognizing that freedom of speech is essential for the discovery of truth, Justice

Brandeis stated “[i]f there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to

avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced

silence.”1 Rather than embracing this principle, Baton Rouge Mayor Pro Tem Scott Wilson

ordered police to remove six citizens from the May 10, 2017, Metro Council meeting.

2. These six citizens were not loud. They were not disruptive. But they all had

something in common – they were there to talk about the police killing of Alton Sterling and

their criticism of the Baton Rouge Police Department.

3. It was their view that the Baton Rouge government should not return to business-

as-usual without first resolving how to respond to the killing. It was their right to hold this

viewpoint, and as the City Attorney confirmed, a citizen can oppose an agenda item for “any

1 Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927).

2

reason that they want.”

4. But Scott Wilson did not want to hear their viewpoint. So although members of

the public had the usual three minutes to comment on each agenda item, Mr. Wilson ordered the

police to remove these six citizens as soon as they said the words “Alton Sterling,” “Chief

Dabadie,” or “police department” – or gave any indication that’s what they were there to talk

about.

5. The Plaintiffs here – Black community leaders Michael McClanahan, Gary

Chambers, and Eugene Collins – were among the citizens that Scott Wilson silenced and ordered

removed.

6. When Michael McClanahan, head of the Baton Rouge NAACP got up to the

microphone to speak, Scott Wilson ordered police officers to “take him out” less than one second

after he said the words “Alton Sterling.”

7. Gary Chambers was only at the microphone for eight seconds when he mentioned

the phrase “police department” and Scott Wilson immediately ordered the police to take him out.

8. And Eugene Collins was only at the podium for 2.5 seconds - and had barely

begun to speak - before Scott Wilson ordered police to “take him out.” As an audience member

cried out, “he hadn’t even started!”

9. In contrast, Scott Wilson consistently has allowed speakers to finish their time

even when they wander far off the agenda topic or explicitly talk about other agenda items – so

long as they don’t mention Alton Sterling, criticize Chief Dabadie, or criticize Scott Wilson.

10. Scott Wilson’s actions are illegal. Although a council chair has the power to

enforce neutral restrictions on speech to keep a meeting on track, “[i]t is beyond debate that the

law prohibits viewpoint discrimination” in such a context. Heaney v. Roberts, 846 F. 3d 795,

801 (5th Cir. 2017). As a result, the First Amendment was violated when Scott Wilson silenced

3

the speech of the Plaintiffs based on “the opinion or perspective of the [Plaintiffs].” Id. at 802.

11. On May 10, 2017, Scott Wilson used his power to illegally silence the opinions of

Michael, Gary, and Eugene based on their viewpoints. But in this Court, the Constitutions of the

United States of America and the State of the Louisiana have power – not Scott Wilson.

12. For these reasons, Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that Scott Wilson’s

behavior of silencing the Plaintiffs based in the viewpoint expressed violated the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Louisiana State Constitution. To enforce

these rights afforded by the United States Constitution, Plaintiffs bring this action, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, for declaratory relief against Scott Wilson’s viewpoint discrimination. Plaintiffs

also seek to recover all their attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in this action and any

other relief that this Court may order.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Plaintiffs bring this action under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment,

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to vindicate their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United

States Constitution. Plaintiffs also bring supplemental state-law claims. This Court thus has

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331and 1367.

14. This case seeks remedies under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,

and 1988.

15. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as a substantial part of

the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims arose in the Middle District of Louisiana, and because

Defendants reside in the District.

III. PARTIES

16. Plaintiff MICHAEL MCCLANAHAN is a resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Mike is the President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

4

(NAACP) Baton Rouge Branch. The NAACP is the oldest civil rights organization in the United

States. On May 10, 2017, Scott Wilson ordered Michael removed from the Metro Council

chamber because of his viewpoint while he was attempting to make public comment.

17. Plaintiff GARY CHAMBERS is a resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He is the

Editor-In-Chief of the Rouge Collection, a Baton Rouge-based, Black-owned media platform.

On May 10, 2017, Scott Wilson ordered Gary removed from the Metro Council chamber because

of his viewpoint while he was attempting to make public comment. Gary was then arrested for

disturbing the peace and resisting arrest.

18. Plaintiff EUGENE COLLINS is a resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He is the

Director of Prevention for the HIV/AIDS Alliance for Region Two, Inc. (HAART). On May 10,

2017, Scott Wilson ordered Eugene removed from the Metro Council chamber because of his

viewpoint while he was attempting to make public comment.

19. Defendant SCOTT WILSON is a member of the Baton Rouge Metro Council. On

January 2, 2017, Mr. Wilson was elected by his peers to be Mayor Pro-Tempore of the Metro

Council, which means that he runs the council meetings and is generally a liaison between the

council and mayor-president.

20. Defendant CITY OF BATON ROUGE is a political subdivision of the State of

Louisiana. The city’s governing authority is consolidated with the government of EAST BATON

ROUGE PARISH. (“CITY/PARISH.”)

21. Except as otherwise indicated, each defendant is a joint tortfeasor with every

other defendant under Louisiana Civil Code Art. 2324.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

22. On July 5, 2016, Baton Rouge police officers shot Alton Sterling to death.

23. According to reports, prior to the shooting Officer Blane Salamoni put a gun to

5

Mr. Sterling’s head and said, “I'll kill you, bitch.”2

24. Mr. Sterling was a Black resident of Baton Rouge and the father of five children.

His death was a tragedy, but not an aberration: in America in 2016, police killed at least one

black man every forty hours.3

25. On May 3, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it was closing its

investigation into the killing of Alton Sterling, and that it would not be bringing charges against

the involved officers.4 The State of Louisiana, however, had yet to make a decision regarding

criminal charges against the officers.

26. The government of Baton Rouge itself had not resolved the issue of its response.

The officers who were involved in the killing of Alton Sterling were on paid leave, and had not

been subject to any sort of formal disciplinary action.

27. The Baton Rouge Metro Council was scheduled to hold a meeting on May 10,

2017. Some of the agenda items were related to the issue of officer-involved shootings. Others

were not, and involved the business-as-usual of the City.

28. A number of community members, including Plaintiffs, decided to go to the

Metro Council and voice their viewpoint. In their view, the Baton Rouge government should not

return to business-as-usual without first resolving how to respond to the killing of a member of

the community by BRPD officers.

A. Scott Wilson’s Removal of Michael McClanahan

29. At the May 10 meeting, Scott Wilson invited the public to make comment on a

Agenda Item 50. That item was regarding “Authorizing settlement of the claim of Glen

Boudreaux for damages resulting from a sewer back-up in the claimant’s home, for a total

2 Greg Allen, Justice Department Declines To Prosecute Police Officers In Killing Of Alton Sterling,

NPR (May 3, 2017). 3 Fatal Force,The Washington Post. 2017. 4 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-close-investigation-death-alton-sterling

6

amount of $25,238.13”

30. Michael McClanahan approached the podium to make comment. In a low, calm

voice, he had the following exchange with Scott Wilson:5

Mr. McClanahan: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the council. Mike

McClanahan, president of East Baton Rouge NAACP. I’m

speaking against the proposed item on the agenda today as a

citizen of this community. I believe –

Mr. Wilson: Speaking on what? We got an item here about a sewer

backup, item 50, that’s what we’re talking about.

Mr. McClanahan: I’m going to tell you why I oppose that. You all haven’t

heard anything yet. You can’t just oppose something you

haven’t heard. Give me an opportunity to speak, and you can

rebut, right? That’s how it works, doesn’t it?

Mr. Wilson: No, not really.

Mr. McClanahan: Well, it should work like that. If you all choose . . .

Mr. Wilson: I’m not going to warn you about it. You can either talk on the

item or you can leave.

Mr. McClanahan: I believe it is my constitutional right to express why I oppose

the sewer item because on July the fifth, 2016, Alton Sterling

was killed . . .

Mr. Wilson: John, please take him out. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McClanahan: . . . and your office continued to conduct business as usual.

Since that time, the City of Baton Rouge has continued to

conduct business – and I oppose this because that is not right.

31. Scott Wilson ordered Mike removed less than one second after he heard the words

“Alton Sterling.”6 Mike had been at the podium for less than a minute.

5 The video is available at http://batonrougela.swagit.com/play/05102017-794 at Item 50, and is

incorporated here by reference. 6 Mr. McClanahan says “Alton Sterling” at Item 50 at 1:18. Mr. Wilson begins his order to remove Mr.

McClanahan at 1:19.

7

B. Scott Wilson’s Removal of Gary Chambers

32. Next was Agenda Item 51 (“Authorizing settlement of the claim of Cornel Hubert

for damages resulting from a sewer back-up in the claimant’s rental unit, for a total amount of

$22,400.03”). Scott Wilson invited the public to come up and make comment.

33. Gary Chambers approached the podium for public comment and had the

following exchange with Scott Wilson:7

Mr. Chambers: So you guys are gonna rob me of my constitutional rights to say

what I believe needs to be said…

Mr. Wilson: You can speak on the item or you can leave.

Mr. Chambers: . . . and have the police department…

Mr. Wilson: Johnny, would you please take him out. Take him.

7 The video is available at http://batonrougela.swagit.com/play/05102017-794 at Item 51, and is

incorporated here by reference.

Fig. 1. Baton Rouge police remove Mr. McClanahan per Scott Wilson’s order to

“take him out.” (Photo by The Advocate.)

8

Mr. Chambers: … who you pay for to escort the tax-paying citizens of this

community out. I’m not going to let him – I have three minutes on

the clock.

Mr. Wilson: No, but not on this item.

Mr. Chambers: Again I say, Alton Sterling was murdered on July the fifth. Scott

Wilson you are a coward for putting people out of this room. They

have a right to speak out. They have a right to speak out. And you

are a coward, sir.

34. Gary Chambers was only at the podium for eight seconds before Scott Wilson

ordered him “taken out.”

35. The police removed Gary from the building and arrested him for disturbing the

peace and resisting arrest.

Fig. 2. Baton Rouge police removing Gary

Chambers per the orders of Scott Wilson.

Fig. 3. Gary Chambers is arrested and loaded into a police vehicle by

Baton Rouge police officers.

9

C. Scott Wilson Ordered Eugene Collins Removed After Two-and-a-Half Seconds

36. During public comment on Item 60, Scott Wilson invited the public to come up

and make comment. Agenda Item 60 was: “Expressing the opposition of the Metropolitan

Council to House Bill 276 filed in the 2017 Session while under officer involved incident

investigations.”

37. Agenda Item 60 was directly related to the Alton Sterling killing, because the

Alton Sterling killing was the “driving force” behind House Bill 276.8 The bill specified how

long police officers would have to hire an attorney before they are questioned for an incident

involving shooting and seriously injuring or killing someone. It had originally contained a

provision about how long an officer should be paid and not paid while on administrative leave

for a shooting – a issue of community concern about the officers involved in the killing of Alton

Sterling.

38. Accordingly, at Scott Wilson’s invitation, Eugene Collins approached the podium

to make public comment regarding the item.9

39. Eugene only got as far as “I oppose this motion because last….” before Scott

Wilson ordered the police to “take him out.”

40. A member of the audience cried out, “He hadn’t even started!”

41. Scott Wilson only allowed Eugene to speak for 2.5 seconds before cutting him off

and expelling him from the chamber. Mr. Wilson silenced him even though Eugene was voicing

a viewpoint directly regarding Agenda Item 60.

8 Julia O’Donoghue, Alton Sterling shooting prompts new policing bills in Louisiana House, Times

Picayune, April 27, 2017. 9 The video is available at http://batonrougela.swagit.com/play/05102017-794 at Item 51, and is

incorporated here by reference.

10

D. At the Same Meeting, Scott Wilson Removed Three Other People When they Spoke

About Alton Sterling – Even Though All They Were Speaking On-Topic

42. Four other people were removed during public comment on Item 60, which is

directly related to officer-involved shootings. Three mentioned Alton Sterling; the fourth was

trying to return to the podium after already speaking.

43. The first was Coby Weaver. She said “I oppose this item, because I oppose you

guys not acting on anything before taking into consideration what you guys need to do in order

to protect the city and its citizens while continuing while push forward other items and wasting

your time while not addressing Alton Sterling.” Scott Wilson ordered police to remove her once

she pointed out that Mr. Wilson had removed Black men for saying the same thing.

44. The next was Sidney Epps. She got up to the podium for public comment and

said: “I moved here immediately after the Alton Sterling shooting, and what it relates to with the

opposition of the bill that is in front of us is that it really needs to call for the immediate

termination of Baton Rouge chief of police Carl Dabadie…” Within a second of her calling for

the termination of Chief Dabadie, Scott Wilson ordered police officers to remove her.

Fig. 4. Eugene Collins being removed from the Metro Council

chamber per Scott Wilson’s orders, after only 2.5 seconds of

speaking.

11

45. The next was a woman who got up to the podium and said something inaudible.

She had already spoken on the agenda item, so after a few seconds, Scott Wilson ordered her to

be taken out. The police officer escorted her back to a seat in the audience, and Scott Wilson

overrode that and directed the officer to “take her out” and pointed to the door.

46. The next was Lynne Espinoza. She got up and expressed her viewpoint that she

doesn’t feel “safe in this city” and offered “concrete ways [the Metro Council]” could make her

feel safe. But as soon as she asked for the officers involved in the Alton Sterling killing to be

fired, Scott Wilson ordered her removed from the chamber.

E. During a May 24, 2017 Presentation, Baton Rouge’s City Attorney Confirms That

a Citizen “Can Oppose an Item for Any Reason That They Want.”

47. On May 24, 2017, the Metro Council held a hearing to discuss what happened at

the May 10 meeting.

48. During the hearing, it became clear that Scott Wilson’s actions had chilled actual

speech by members of the public. One woman explained that May 10 was her first Council

meeting, and she had planned on speaking. But when she saw how the others were treated, she

became afraid and chose not to speak.

49. Youth leader Mya Richardson spoke about how young people in Baton Rouge had

heard about the May 10 incident, and were wondering “is this how the world works?” She asked

“how am I supposed to tell people they can be anything they want to be when I can’t even speak

here?”

50. The City Attorney then gave a presentation. She explained that Section 1.7(a) of

the Code of Ordinances provides that:

In compliance with R.S. 42:5(D),10 members of the public will be allowed to speak on

10 That statute has been renamed R.S. 42:14(D), and reads: “Except school boards, which shall be subject

to R.S. 42:15, each public body conducting a meeting which is subject to the notice requirements of R.S.

42:19(A) shall allow a public comment period at any point in the meeting prior to action on an agenda

12

any item included on the agenda. Members of the public who wish to speak, must

request permission to do so when such time is announced by the chairman. The

chairman will allocate time to all nonmembers of the council speaking before the

council.

51. The City Attorney opined that a chair can restrict the speech of someone speaking

on a topic not germane to the agenda. She engaged in an extensive colloquy with the council

members about what “germane” means. Among other points, she explained:

• “If I oppose a particular item for any reason – because I’m cranky today, that can be my

reason.”

• “No one on the council has the authority to cut someone off just because they disagree

with their reason. If at any point it becomes clear they are just discussing a matter – they

are not objecting, they are just discussing a matter not on the agenda – that is the point at

which they become out of order under any rule of procedure and it is up to the chairman

to stop it and move on.”

• She acknowledged that some time back, a member of the public got up to the podium and

read from Dr. Seuss’ “Green Eggs & Ham” but was not removed.

52. She concluded that, in her opinion, “it was in the discretion of the mayor pro tem

to rule them out of order when they began talking about an item that was not on the agenda.”

53. Some City Council members pushed back. Council Member Donna Collins-Lewis

had the following colloquy with the City Attorney:

Member Collins-Lewis: They weren’t off topic. They were making the point that they

opposed the item on the agenda because Alton Sterling was

killed on July the fifth. They attached that to their opposition

to the item on the agenda. That was the reason they opposed

it. Same thing as Green Eggs and Ham. Were they not within

their constitutional right to oppose it because of that reason?

City Attorney: They can oppose an item for any reason that they want.

Member Collins-Lewis: So they were not out of order then. But they were asked not to

speak on the Alton Sterling thing at all at that meeting. When

they came up here, whatever the item was that they were

addressing, when they opposed it for that reason they were

immediately escorted out of the chamber.

item upon which a vote is to be taken. The governing body may adopt reasonable rules and restrictions

regarding such comment period.”

13

City Attorney: I’d be happy to talk to you about this later.

54. The City Attorney’s presentation confirmed that citizens can oppose an agenda

item for any reason. And here, Mike McClanahan clearly articulated Plaintiffs’ reasoning – they

opposed the agenda items because it was their view that the City should not return to business-

as-usual without first addressing the issue of Alton Sterling’s killing.

F. A Month Later, Scott Wilson Ejects Another Citizen Who Mentions Alton

Sterling, After Less Than Five Seconds of Public Comment

55. At a June 28, 2017, Metro Council meeting, Agenda Item 56 was “Authorizing

settlement of the claim of Liberty Mutual Insurance on behalf of American Fire & Casualty

Company as subrogee of Billy Heroman’s Flowerland for damages resulting from an auto

accident.” Scott Wilson invited public comment. A man got up to the podium and said: “Good

evening council, on this item we would like to know when you’re going to stop pussyfooting

around and handle this Alton Sterling situation.” A that point, Scott Wilson ordered him

removed. The man had spoken for less than five seconds.11

G. Scott Wilson Has Consistently Allowed People to Speak Far Off Agenda Topics –

So Long As They Don’t Mention Alton Sterling, Criticize Chief Dabadie, or

Criticize Scott Wilson.

56. A review of other meetings in which Scott Wilson presided shows a clear pattern

– he allows speakers to talk even though they are far from the agenda topic, so long as they don’t

bring up Alton Sterling, criticize Chief Dabadie, or criticize Scott Wilson himself.

57. At the May 10, 2016 Metro Council meeting, Agenda Item 49 was: “Authorizing

the Mayor-President to execute a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with the East Baton Rouge

11 The video is available at http://batonrougela.swagit.com/play/06282017-776 at Item 56, and is

incorporated here by reference.

14

Parish Council on the Aging” regarding funds generated by an ad valorem tax.”12 Resident Janet

Mulder got up during public comment and discussed about how the “stuff in the newspaper

badmouthing the Council on Aging management” was offensive and how the Metro Council was

manipulating the Council on Aging. She said nothing at all about the Cooperative Endeavor

Agreement. She said nothing about the ad valorem tax. But Scott Wilson allowed her to speak

until she was finished. He did not order her removed.

58. At the July 26, 2017 Metro Council meeting, Agenda Item 101 was: “Providing

for a temporary hardship waiver” to city laws for “those residents whose primary residence was

damaged in the August 2016 flood.” Resident Jacqueline Hawkins got up and asked questions

that had nothing to do with the hardship waiver – she asked what time the pumps failed, when

power was restored to the pumping station, how flood water exited the homes and community.

She asks for a flowchart tracking the floodwaters. Scott Wilson allowed her to talk for the full

three minutes, encouraged her to come back and talk with council members later, and then

allowed her to keep speaking past her time.13

59. At the August 9, 2017 Metro Council meeting, Agenda Item 109 was “Receiving

an update” about a contractual agreement with LSU “to coordinate all research activities for the

BRAVE program and receiving a report of all contracts given on the BRAVE program since

January 1, 2017.” Plaintiff Gary Chambers got up and spoke. He began by discussing the

BRAVE program, but moved on to the topic of underfunding of Black-owned business generally

and 200 years of locking out of the Black community from Baton Rouge business. Scott Wilson

12 The video is available at http://batonrougela.swagit.com/play/05102017-794 at Item 49, and is

incorporated here by reference. 13 The video is available at http://batonrougela.swagit.com/play/05102017-794 at Item 101, and is

incorporated here by reference.at Item 49, and is incorporated here by reference.

15

allowed him to finish his entire three minutes.14

60. At the August 23, 2017 Metro Council meeting, Agenda Item 101 was:

“Expressing the support of the Metropolitan Council for the investigation by the Louisiana

Department of Justice into the July 5, 2016 shooting of Alton Sterling to be conducted and

concluded as expeditiously as possible.” Resident Russell Kelly got up and spoke. He began by

talking about team training, and asked if the Metro Council had undergone any team training to

learn how to work with each other. He then says “let me tell you a little bit about team training.”

Scott Wilson points out he isn’t on topic, saying “we’re talking really about the attorney general,

that’s what it’s about.” But then Russell Kelly keeps talking about team training and about

personality tests – and Scott Wilson lets him continue until he is finished.15

61. Perhaps clearest of all is at the September 27, 2017 Metro Council meeting, Item

76 was to “Amend the 2017 allotment of positions for the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of

East Baton Rouge.” Resident Philip Velour got up and said “I didn’t get to finish before, I would

really like for y’all to reconsider the one you just voted on and vote against it.” He then started

talking about train stations and arguments for the previous agenda item. Scott Wilson reminded

him that they were on to a new agenda item. But Mr. Velour kept talking about the previous

agenda item, pulling out a document and citing to errors in it. Scott Wilson let him talk for

another minute before reminding him again that they were on a new agenda item. Then Mr.

Velour sat down.16 At no point did Scott Wilson call police officers to remove Mr. Velour.

14 The video is available at http://batonrougela.swagit.com/play/08092017-828 at Item 109, and is

incorporated here by reference. (4:09 to 7:08.) 15 The video is available at http://batonrougela.swagit.com/play/08232017-718 at Item 101, and is

incorporated here by reference. (7:24 to 8:16.) 16 The video is available at http://batonrougela.swagit.com/play/09272017-749 at Item 76, and is

incorporated here by reference. (:30 to 2:22.)

16

H. Scott Wilson’s Treatment of Michael, Eugene, and Gary is Part of a

Long-Standing Pattern Baton Rouge’s Government Suppressing Black Voices

62. Scott Wilson is part of a long history of Baton Rouge’s government suppressing

the voices of its Black citizens.

63. In 1961, the Baton Rouge Police Department suppression of a peaceful protest

and arrest of Reverend Elton Cox resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion holding that it was

“clear” that Rev. Cox’s First Amendment rights had been violated. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S.

536 (1965).

64. In 1972, tensions between Baton Rouge government and the community escalated

after the alleged killings of two Black students – Denver A. Smith and Leonard Douglas – by

East Baton Rouge sheriff’s deputies at a Southern University protest.

65. In 1980, the City of Baton Rouge and several dozen other municipal defendants

were placed under a federal consent decree intended to remedy racially discriminatory hiring

practices of a class of Louisiana police and fire departments, including the BRPD. In the decades

since, nearly every municipal defendant reached compliance with the consent decree and was

dismissed from the case – but not the City of Baton Rouge.

Baton Rouge police watching Black protesters in Baton Rouge

in 1961. The Supreme Court decided that the arrest of a Baton

Rouge protester that year was a “clear” violation of First

Amendment rights. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965).

Baton Rouge police watching Black protesters in 2016,

shortly before illegally arresting them.

17

66. In September of 2005, the population of Baton Rouge swelled as many residents

of New Orleans, a majority Black city, sought refuge from Hurricane Katrina and the resultant

flood. The Michigan State Police and New Mexico State Police both sent troopers to assist the

BRPD in policing the city’s rapidly growing population.

67. Within three days of the troopers’ arrival, both state police agencies had ordered

their troopers to cease operations with BRPD after the troopers witnessed and complained of

egregious misconduct and potentially criminal actions by BRPD officers. One state trooper from

Michigan said Baton Rouge police attempted to thank him for his help by letting him "beat

down" a prisoner.17 A spokeswoman for the Michigan State Police told a reporter that “troopers

observed Baton Rouge police officers engage in actions that were an affront to their sense of

dignity and respect.” Members of both the Michigan State Police and the New Mexico State

Police shared observations and concerns that were compiled in a formal letter of complaint to the

BRPD.

68. In 2011, then-BRPD Chief Dewayne White publicly stated that ten percent of the

department’s officers failed to exercise basic levels of professionalism, and that “it’s become so

ingrained” in the minds of some officers that they “believe that everybody they come across or

most people they come across with that color of skin is probably a criminal.” Defendant Mayor

Holdren fired Chief White in 2013 and hired Defendant Dabadie in his place.

69. In September 2014, a series of racist text messages sent by a BRPD officer to a

civilian were published. In the messages, the officer, a fifteen-year veteran of the department,

referred both to Black colleagues and civilians with racial epithets, and stated, inter alia, “I wish

someone would pull a Ferguson on them and take them out. I hate looking at those African

monkeys at work . . . I enjoy arresting those thugs with their saggy pants.”

17 Jarvis DeBerry, Before killing Alton Sterling, Baton Rouge police had a history of brutality complaints,

The Times-Picayune, July 6, 2016.

18

70. After the July 2016 killing of Black Baton Rouge resident Alton Sterling, the

police cracked down on peaceful protesters who spoke out. Black protesters were arrested even

when they complied with police orders to clear the streets and sidewalks. Black protesters were

arrested even when they were standing on private property with permission of the resident.18

71. The message to Baton Rouge’s Black community is clear. If you speak out on the

streets, you will be removed and arrested. If you speak out on private property, you will be

removed and arrested. And if you speak out in the Metro Council chamber, you will be removed

and arrested.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

First Cause Of Action - Violation Of the First Amendment

(All Plaintiffs against All Defendants)

72. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in each preceding and following paragraph.

73. The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging

the freedom of speech . . . .” U.S. Const. Amend I. The First Amendment has applied to states

and state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

74. “It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its

substantive content or the message it conveys." Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of

18 See, e.g., Imani v. City of Baton Rouge, M.D. La. 17-cv-00439, R. Doc. 5.

Fig. 6. On July 10, 2016, Baton

Rouge police remove and arrest

Black youth leader Blair Imani, who

had been standing on private

property and peacefully exercising

her right to free speech.

19

Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995)

75. Similarly, it is “beyond debate that the law prohibits viewpoint discrimination in a

limited public forum.” Heaney v. Roberts, 846 F. 3d 795, 801 (5th Cir. 2017), citing Good News

Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 106 (2001). Therefore, “[v]iewpoint-based restrictions

on speech are per se violative of the First Amendment.” Id. at fn. 4.

76. The government can restrict or regulate speech in a limited public forum "as long

as the regulation ‘(1) does not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint and (2) is

reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.’” Heaney at 801-802.

77. As a result, in a limited public forum, the government can limit speech to certain

topics. Chiu v. Plano Independent School Dist., 260 F. 3d 330, 354-355 (5th 2001). On-topic

speech is treated as if it were in a traditional public forum, and any restriction is subject to strict

scrutiny. Chiu at 347. Off-topic speech receives less protection, but still cannot be subject to

view point discrimination.

78. Viewpoint discrimination exists "when the specific motivating ideology or the

opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction." Heaney at 802.

79. As the Fifth Circuit in Heaney agreed, it is "beyond cavil that a reasonable [chair

of a City Council meeting] would have known that it would be impermissible under the First

Amendment to prevent [a citizen] from speaking and to eject him from the meeting based on the

message he was conveying." Id.

80. Plaintiffs sought to exercise their fundamental constitutional right to speak at the

Metro Council meeting on May 10, 2017. Plaintiffs were speaking on topic by expressing their

viewpoint that the City of Baton Rouge should not continue with business-as-usual until it had

resolved the issue of how to respond to the killing of Alton Sterling.

81. Defendants discriminated against the content and viewpoint of Plaintiffs’ speech

20

by having Plaintiffs removed from the Metro Council chambers before their public comment

time was up.

82. Defendant Scott Wilson’s motive in ordering that Plaintiffs be removed was to

silence a particular viewpoint.

83. If Scott Wilson had not had this illegitimate motive, there would have been a

different result – as evidenced by the many other speakers who went off topic but were not

removed.

84. Thus, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights whether or not

Plaintiffs were speaking on or off topic.

85. As a result, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, should rule that Scott

Wilson’s actions violated the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

86. Furthermore, Citizens have a “First Amendment right to attend a public meeting.”

Heaney v. Roberts, 147 F. Supp. 3d 600, fn. 10 (E.D. La. 2015), citing Laskowski v. Snyder, No.

05-502, 2007 WL 118535 (N.D.Ind. Jan. 10, 2007) ; Timmon v. Wood, 633 F.Supp.2d 453

(W.D.Mich.2008).

87. Here, Plaintiffs sought to exercise their fundamental constitutional right to attend

the Metro Council meeting on May 10, 2017.

88. Defendants did not just remove Plaintiffs from the podium. They went a step

further and removed them from the Metro-Council Chambers entirely.

89. When the police merely returned a person to their seat, Scott Wilson overrode that

decision and explicitly required them removed from the chamber.

90. This removal from the Metro Council Chambers was unlawful because it

infringed on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to attend a public meeting.

91. As a result, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, should declare that Scott

21

Wilson’s actions violated the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

92. Finally, Plaintiffs’ assembly, speech, and attendance at the Metro Council

meeting were protected activities under the First Amendment.

93. Defendants’ removal of Plaintiffs from the podium and chambers was intended to

deter and chill their exercise of First Amendment Rights.

94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs’ first

amendment exercise was chilled.

Second Cause Of Action - Violation of the Louisiana Constitution

(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

95. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in each preceding and following paragraph.

96. Defendants’ actions described above interfered with Plaintiffs’ exercise of

fundamental rights to speech, as guaranteed by Louisiana’s Constitution.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

THEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter the following relief:

A. Enter a declaratory judgment, specifying Defendants’ constitutional violations and

declaring the rights of the Plaintiffs;

B. Enter a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that Scott

Wilson’s removal of Plaintiffs violate the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

C. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 28 C.F.R. § 35.175, and 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b);

D. Order such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs may be

justly entitled.

22

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William Most_________ /s/ Brian Lahti_____________

WILLIAM MOST BRIAN LAHTI

Law Office of William Most, L.L.C. Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood

Louisiana Bar No. 36914 Utah Bar No. 16298, (PHV motion to come)

201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 114 #101 170 South Main Street

New Orleans, LA 70170 Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Tel: (650) 465-5023 Tel: (801) 359-9000; Fax: (801) 359-9011

Email: williammost@gmail.com Email: lahti@mcgiplaw.com