Plaintiffs, by way of complaint against defendant, 1. In this suit, plaintiffs seek declaratory and. injunctive relief from a municipal ordinance that

Transcription

1 Frank L. Corrado, Esquire (FC 9895) BARRY, CORRADO, GRASSI & GIBSON, P.C. Edward Barocas, Esquire (EB 8251) J.C. Salyer, Esquire (JS 4613) American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation P.O. Box 750 Newark, NJ (973) Attorneys for Plaintiff THE COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, J. DAVID ALCANTARA, NORMAN COHEN and CHARLES MELCHIOR, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF PLEASANTVILLE, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CASE NO. CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, by way of complaint against defendant, hereby aver: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. In this suit, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief from a municipal ordinance that unconstitutionally restricts, and subjects to unduly burdensome administrative review, their First Amendment right to hold small, peaceful public demonstrations on the sidewalks of, and at other public forums within, the City of Pleasantville. The ordinance in question, Chapter 178 1

2 of the Pleasantville Code, is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to plaintiff s proposed demonstrations. II. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Coalition for Peace and Justice is an unincorporated association of individuals, based in Atlantic County, New Jersey, that seeks peaceful solutions to national and international conflicts. The Coalition takes public positions on issues of public importance related to advocacy of peace and justice, and in particular, opposes the military intervention of the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Coalition is a regional chapter of Peace Action, a national grassroots peace advocacy organization. 3. Plaintiff J. David Alcantara is an adult individual and is an active member of the Coalition for Peace and Justice. 4. Plaintiff Norman Cohen is an adult individual and is an active member, and the current executive director, of the Coalition for Peace and Justice. 5. Plaintiff Charles Melchior is an adult individual and is an active member of the Coalition for Peace and Justice. 6. The City of Pleasantville is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New 2

3 Jersey, with offices at 18 North First Street, Pleasantville, New Jersey. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This suit arises under the United States constitution and the laws of the United States and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, together with pendent state constitutional claims. 8. The Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as an action arising under the Constitution of the United States, and 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3), to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the constitution of the United States; and over plaintiffs pendent state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C The Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C et seq. 10. The Court has authority to award costs and attorney s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C Venue is properly laid in the District of New Jersey, pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1391(b), because defendant is located in this district, and the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this district. IV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 3

4 12. In furtherance of their efforts to foster a just, peaceful and moral society, both in the United States and in the world, plaintiffs regularly engage in expressive activities, including rallies, assemblies, demonstrations, leafleting, and other similar speech activity. 13. Plaintiffs intend to continue this expressive activity in the future, and in fact to intensify it. 14. Plaintiffs activities have occurred, and will in the future occur, in the City of Pleasantville, including on the public sidewalks of that city. 15. In or about June 2002, Pleasantville adopted comprehensive revisions to Chapter 178 of its municipal codes, governing Regulations for Parades and Other Special Events. The revised ordinance, comprising Sections through , is attached to this complaint as Exhibit A. 16. By its terms, the revised ordinance requires anyone engaging in expressive activity on the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public property in Pleasantville to obtain a permit, no matter what the size or nature of the activity proposed. 17. By its terms, the revised ordinance also requires 30-day notice of an expressive event absent a discretionary determination by the city that good cause exists to waive 4

5 the deadline; and affords the city 15 days to determine whether to issue a speech permit. 18. By its terms, the revised ordinance also: 1) requires disclosure of the identity of the speakers, no matter how few there may be; and 2) permits the city to demand unspecified supplemental information, on a discretionary basis, as a prerequisite for issuing a speech permit. 19. By its terms, the ordinance permits the city to deny a permit if, in the discretion of the city administrator, the expressive event will require diversion of too many police officers. 20. By its terms, the ordinance requires, as a precondition to issuance of a permit, speakers to agree to indemnify the city for damage to city property or others caused by any person under the [sponsor s] control insofar as permitted by law, and irrespective of the city s fault. 21. By its terms, the ordinance requires a prospective speaker to obtain insurance and to pay for traffic and crowd control unless the speaker verifies that the proposed speech is protected by the First Amendment and that the speaker cannot afford the requisite costs. 5

6 22. The ordinance contains criminal penalties for its violation, including a fine of up to $1,000 and reimbursement to the city of costs associated with the expressive event. 23. By its terms, the ordinance applies to many of plaintiffs past and planned expressive activities. Plaintiffs have in the past, and intend in the future, to hold public vigils against American military activity in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations in the Middle East. 24. These vigils consist of small groups of Coalition members, approximately 20 persons, who assemble peaceably, and without interfering with either pedestrian or automobile traffic, on the public sidewalks along the main roads in Pleasantville, with signs, candles, leaflets and other indicia of opposition to war, which they display or offer to passersby. 25. This expressive activity is fully protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and by the cognate provisions of the New Jersey constitution. 26. However, the existence of revised Chapter 178 puts plaintiffs to the Hobson s choice of self-censoring their protected expression, subjecting themselves to the unconstitutional and unduly intrusive and burdensome 6

7 administrative regime of the ordinance, or conducting their speech activity and risking arrest and fines. 27. Plaintiffs fears that the ordinance will be enforced against them are heightened by their experience under the predecessor to the revised ordinance. Specifically, in October 9, 2001, the Coalition attempted to hold a vigil on the public sidewalk along the Black Horse Pike in Pleasantville, and was told by police to disperse because the group had not obtained a speech permit under the predecessor to the revised ordinance. 28. Similarly, on December 4, 2001, a Coalition vigil was truncated by Pleasantville police for absence of a speech permit under the predecessor version of Ordinance Although, as noted above, Pleasantville subsequently revised its speech permit ordinance, that revision did not cure the ordinance s constitutional defects. In particular, the ordinance still requires all speakers to obtain a permit to speak in public; and Pleasantville has maintained this requirement despite several attempts by the Coalition to persuade the city of its unconstitutionality. 30. Because of the permit requirement, the Coalition has consciously determined not to hold its 7

8 vigils in Pleasantville, even though Pleasantville s location, and the presence of major roads into Atlantic City, makes it an ideal spot for public expressive activity. Instead, the Coalition has held vigils in other municipalities where a speech permit is not required. 31. For example, the Coalition intends to hold a sidewalk vigil on May 26, organized around the theme Honor Our Troops No More War. The Coalition currently intends to hold this vigil in Atlantic City, but would have preferred Pleasantville were it not for the existence, and possible enforcement, of the permit ordinance. 32. By enacting and indicating its intention to enforce revised Chapter 178 of its municipal code, Pleasantville has acted under color of state law. 33. The passage and intended enforcement of revised Chapter 178 represent and embody an official policy, practice, procedure or custom of the City of Pleasantville. 34. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law against the enforcement of an unconstitutional ordinance. 35. The public sidewalks, streets and parks of the City of Pleasantville are public places of a kind that have been traditionally and historically open for expressive activity, the communication of thoughts and ideas, and public discussion of important public issues. 8

9 COUNT I (First Amendment Violations) 36. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments of paragraphs 1-35 as if fully set forth. 37. Both on its face and as applied to plaintiffs expressive activities, revised Chapter 178 of the Pleasantville municipal code violates the First Amendment to the Constitution in that: a) It is an unlawful prior restraint on speech. b) It is vague and unconstitutionally overbroad in that it requires a speech permit for all public expressive activity, no matter what the size or the nature of the expressive event. c) It imposes unduly burdensome and intrusive administrative requirements on speakers, including unreasonably long notification and decision times, and compelled disclosure of the speaker s identity. d) It vests unlawful, standardless discretion to require, grant or deny a speech permit in the municipal administrative officer charged with making that determination. e) It imposes improper and unlawful costs on speakers solely as a function of their engaging in 9

10 expressive activity, and conditions waiver of those costs on constitutionally unlawful conditions. 38. As a proximate result of the adoption of this revised ordinance, plaintiffs have suffered, and will suffer, irreparable injury, in that they have been, and will continue to be, deprived of their rights of free expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and have been, and will continue to be, chilled in the exercise of those rights. COUNT II (State Constitutional Violations) 39. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments of paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth. 40. Both on its face and as applied to plaintiffs, and for the reasons set forth above, revised Chapter 178 of the Pleasantville municipal code violates rights of speech and association guaranteed by Article I, paragraphs 6 and 18 of the New Jersey Constitution. 41. As a proximate result of the adoption of the revised ordinance, plaintiffs have been, and will continue to be, deprived of their rights under the state constitution. 10

11 42. As a proximate result of the passage and intended application of the revised ordinance, plaintiffs have suffered, and will suffer, irreparable injury. V. NEED FOR IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 43. Defendant s threatened and imminent violations of plaintiffs rights, as described above, are real and substantial. 44. This summer plaintiffs intend to organize vigils that include leafleting and other expressive activity as described above, and unless immediate relief is granted, they will not have the ability to hold these vigils in a timely fashion. 45. The summer is typically the most active and favorable time for the Coalition s expressive activity, so it is critical that the Coalition receive immediate relief so that they can plan and hold their activities during this period. 46. The harm that will be suffered by plaintiffs is immediate and irreparable, and justifies the issuance of a preliminary injunction against defendants, allowing plaintiffs to engage in the expressive activity described above. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 11

12 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against defendant as follows: A. Declaring Chapter 178 of the Pleasantville municipal code unconstitutional and invalid on its face, and/or as applied to plaintiffs. B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining the City of Pleasantville from enforcing Chapter 178 of its municipal code. C. For costs, attorney s fees, and other appropriate relief. BARRY, CORRADO, GRASSI & GIBSON, PC DATED: FRANK L. CORRADO AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NJ FOUNDATION EDWARD BAROCAS J.C. SALYER ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 12