Klein v. City of Portland, Oregon et al

Filing 68

Findings & Recommendation - Defendants' motion 37 for partial summary judgment should be DENIED with regard to Klein's Third Claim for Relief for violation of his constitutional right to freedom of speech and GRANTED in all other respects. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 6/10/2009. If objections are filed a party may file a response to those objections within fourteen days of the filing of the objections. Signed on 5/26/09 by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

,

.

FILED

U

I N T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N

C A R E Y KLEIN, Plaintiff, v. CITY O F PORTLAND, OREGON, and O F F I C E R M A R K Z Y L AW Y a n d O F F I C E R J E R R Y CIOETA, Defendants.

CV.07-1088-AC FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION

A C O S T A , M a g i s t r a t e Judge: Findings a n d Recommendation P l a i n t i f f C a r e y K l e i n ( " K l e i n " ) f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e C i t y o f P o r t l a n d (the " C i t y " ) , a n d O f f i c e r M a r k Zylawy (collectively " D e f e n d a n t s " ) , I asserting claims f o r b a t t e l y a n d violations o f h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t o b e free f r o m u m e a s o n a b l e s e i z u r e a n d t o free s p e e c h . K l e i n also a s s e r t s a

' P l a i n t i f f a l s o n a m e d O f f i c e r J e n y C i o e t a a s a defendant. H o w e v e r , O f f i c e r C i o e t a w a s d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e from t h i s action i n S e p t e m b e r 2008 a n d is no longer a p a r t y to the action. P a g e -1- F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N {SIB}

claim for municipal liability against the City based on a failure to properly train Officer Zylawy. Defendants move for pmiial summary judgment against all but t h e battety claim and the unreasonable seizure claim under the Fourth Amendment. For the reasons set fOlih below, the COUti recommends denying summary judgment o n K l e i n ' s Third Claim for R e l i e f for violation o f this constitutional right to freedom o f speech and grmtting Defendants' motion for partial summmy j u d g m e n t i n all o t h e r r e s p e c t s .
Background

K l e i n r e g u l a r l y a t t e n d s a n d videotapes p o l i t i c a l p r o t e s t s a n d m a r c h e s , a n d strongly believes that he is making a valuable contribution to society b y doing so. (Klein Dep. 81 :9-20, Klein Dec!.
~

12.) In the past, Klein has been involved in physical altercations with police officers while filming
~

but has n o t been deterred from videotaping future protests and marches. (Klein Dec!.

9.) H e

attributes his tenacity and willingness t o take risks to his knowledge o f T a i Chi, his s e l f employment, and the absence o f responsibility for a family. (Klein Dec!. ~~ 13-14.) O n the evening o f January 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , Klein was filming a political protest in the Lloyd Center Mall in Portland, Oregon (the "Mall"). (Klein Dec!. ~ 2.) When the protesters were asked t o leave the Mall by a security guard, Klein followed them out. (Klein Dep. 36:12-15, 37:17-18.) As he exited the Mall, Klein was grabbed b y someone he identified as a security guard and was p u s h e d forward. (Klein Dep. 42: 1 8 - 2 3 , 4 4 : 12-14.) A t this point, another individual, whom Klein believes to be Officer M a r k Zylawy, grabbed Klein from behind and threw h i m to the ground. (Klein Dep. 44:15-18, Klein Dec!.
~

6 . ) T h e s a m e i n d i v i d u a l t h e n p u l l e d K l e i n u p b y his b a c k p a c k s t r a p s a n d

pushed him toward the street. (Klein Dep. 50:4-12.) John Rotter, a friend o f Klein's, took the video camera from Klein immediately after the P a g e -2- F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
{SIB}

altercation and began filming the faces and nam etags o f the police officers working the protest. ( R o t t e r D e p . 3 1 : 2 0 - 2 5 . ) R o t t e r , l i k e K l e i n , w a s b e i n g e s c o r t e d f r o m the M a l l a t t h e time. ( R o t t e r Dep. 31:7 -9.) After a couple o f minutes, K l e i n r e t r i e v e d the camera and proceeded to film the p o l i c e officers himself, zooming i n o n the officers faces to get close ups. ( K l e i n D e p . 52: 16-53-20.) K l e i n followed the protesters t o a military recruiting office a n d then to a parking structure, and continued to videotape for approximately thitty more minutes. (Klein Dep. 56: 10-57:8.) While in the parking structure, Officer Zylawy a p p r o a c h e d Klein, aggressively b u m p e d against h i s b a c k p a c k a n d s t a r e d a t h i m i n a c o l d a n d t h r e a t e n i n g m a n n e r . ( K l e i n D e p . 6 2 : 9 - 1 8 , K l e i n Dec!.
~

8.)

Kle i n suffered various physical injuries from b e i n g p u s h e d to the ground. H e h a d trouble s l e e p i n g for t h r e e m o n t h s due t o n e c k p a i n a n d w a s u n a b l e t o r i d e a bike, h i s m a j o r f o r m o f transpOltation, for two weeks. (Klein Dep. 64 :21-65 :2, 68 :20-23, 71 :21-24.) While t h e incident w a s t r a u m a t i c to K l e i n and caused h i m recutTing fear o f police officers as well as anxiety during p u b l i c events, Klei n h a s continued to videotape protests s i n c e t h e incident. (Klein Dep. 81:21-23, Klein Dec!.
~~

9, 11.) K l e i n states t h a t h e is more resistant to the chilling effect o f Officer Z y l a w y ' s

c o n d u c t t h a n a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y f i r m n e s s a n d t h a t he h a s s e e n o t h e r v i d e o g r a p h e r s d e t e r r e d f r o m filming after suffering less serious harassment. ( K l e i n Dec!.
~~

12, 15.)

Legal S t a n d a r d
R u l e 5 6 o f the F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e a l l o w s t h e g r a n t i n g o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t : i f t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e d i s c o v e l y a n d d i s c l o s u r e m a t e r i a l s o n file, a n d a n y a f f i d a v i t s s h o w t h a t there is n o genuine issue as to any material fact and that the m o v a n t is entitled to j u d g m e n t as a matter o f law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "[T]he requirement is that there b e n o genuine issue o f material fact." A n t h e s v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 162, 165 (D. De!. 1991) (citingAndersonv. Liberty Lobby,

P a g e -3- F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

{SIB}

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986))(emphasis i n original).
T h e m o v a n t has t h e initial b u r d e n o f establishing t h a t n o g e n u i n e issue o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s o r that a material fact essential to the nonmovant's c l a i m is absent. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 4 7 7 U.S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 - 2 4 (1986). O n c e the m o v a n t h a s m e t i t s b u r d e n , the o n u s i s o n t h e n o n m o v a n t t o e s t a b l i s h that there is a genuine issue o f material fact. Id. at 324. I n o r d e r to m e e t this burden, the n o n m o v a n t "may n o t rely m e r e l y o n a l l e g a t i o n s o r d e n i a l s i n its o w n p l e a d i n g , " b u t m u s t i n s t e a d "set o u t s p e c i f i c facts showing a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
A n issue o f fact is material if, u n d e r the substantive l a w o f t h e case, r e s o l u t i o n o f the factual

d i s p u t e c o u l d a f f e c t t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e case. A n d e r s o n , 4 7 7 U . S . a t 2 4 8 . F a c t u a l d i s p u t e s a r e genuine i f t h e y " p r o p e r l y c a n b e r e s o l v e d o n l y b y a f i n d e r o f fact b e c a u s e t h e y m a y r e a s o n a b l y b e resolved i n favor o f either party." Id. at 250. O n the other hand, i f after the c o m t has d r a w n a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r o f t h e n o n m o v i n g party, " t h e e v i d e n c e i s m e r e l y c o l o r a b l e , o r i s n o t significantly probative, s u m m a t y j u d g m e n t m a y be granted." Id. a t 249-50 (citations omitted).

Discussion
1. F i r s t C l a i m for R e l i e f - Battery and U n r e a s o n a b l e Seizure u n d e r the F o u r t h a n d F o m t e e n t h Amendments D e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t K l e i n ' s c l a i m f o r u m e a s o n a b l e s e i z u r e i s p r o p e r l y a n a l y z e d u n d e r the F o m t h A m e n d m e n t , w h i c h r e l a t e s s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e c o n d u c t a t q u e s t i o n , a n d n o t as a d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m u n d e r t h e F oUlteenth A m e n d m e n t . K l e i n r e p r e s e n t e d , b o t h i n w r i t i n g a n d a t o r a l a r g u m e n t , that he d i d n o t intend to allege o r pursue a c l a i m u n d e r the F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t for u m e a s o n a b l e seizure. B a s e d o n these concessions, to t h e e x t e n t K l e i n has alleged a F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t claim, D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n for s u m m a t y j u d g m e n t o n s u c h c l a i m s h o u l d b e granted.

P a g e -4- FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

{SIS}

2. Second Claim for R e l i e f - Municipal Liability and Failme to Train In his Second Claim for Relief, Klein alleges that the City was negligent in the training o f its police officers and had a custom or practice o f allowing police officers to use excessive force to seize videographers at public political demonstrations. The City argues that Klein has failed to prove the existence o f a City custom o f encouraging or condoning the use o f excessive force i n these situations. Klein conceded in his b r i e f and at oral argument that he is unable to prove municipal liability against the City. The City is entitled to summmy judgment o n this claim. 3. Third Claim for R e l i e f - First Amendment Right to Free Speech K l e i n alleges i n h i s T h i r d C l a i m f o r R e l i e f t h a t O f f i c e r Zylawy i n t e n t i o n a l l y d e p r i v e d h i m o f his right to freedom o f p r e s s when he forcefully pushed Klein to the ground while Klein was f i l m i n g a p o l i t i c a l protest. D e f e n d a n t s c o n c e d e t h a t v i d e o t a p i n g matters o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i s protected by the First Amendment. However, Defendants argue that Klein is unable to establish that the officer's conduct deprived Klein o f his constitutional right to videotape protests. "State action designed to retaliate against and chill political expression strikes at the velY heart o f the First Amendment." Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). A c c o r d i n g l y , a p o l i c e o f f i c e r v i o l a t e s a p e r s o n ' s F i r s t A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s i f h i s actions " w o u l d c h i l l or silence a person o f ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities" and the police officer intended to inhibit such activities by his actions. lvfendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. lvfendocino
County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300-01 (9th Cir. 1999).
I t is clear from the facts before the court, as well as K l e i n ' s own admission, that O f f i c e r ' s

Zylawy's conduct did n o t deter Klein from continuing to film protests. However, that is not the applicable standard. The question the court must answer is whether Officer's Zylawy's conduct Page -5- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
{SIB}

would deter a p e r s o n o f ordinary firmness f r o m future filming. D e f e n d a n t s offer the c o n d u c t o f K l e i n ' s friend, J o h n R o t t e r , who t o o k t h e c a m e r a from K l e i n i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r he w a s t h r o w n t o t h e ground and filmed the very officers that were involved in the altercation while Klein w a s recovering, as evidence that a person o f ordinmy firmness was, in fact, not d e t e n e d b y Officer Z y l a w y ' s conduct. However, there is evidence in the record that, viewed i n a light m o s t favorable to Klein, indicates that R o t t e r was n o t a p e r s o n o f ordinmy firmness. R o t t e r ' s pmiicipation in the protest c o u l d b e v i e w e d as e v i d e n c e t h a t R o t t e r h e l d s t r o n g p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s a n d w a s c o m m i t t e d o r w i l l i n g t o e n g a g e i n somewhat extreme acts to suppOli those beliefs. Additionally, R o t t e r merely observed the treatment o f K l e i n by Officer Zyalwy, which is not the same as b e i n g the target o f s u c h contact. T h e r e is no evidence t h a t R o t t e r w o u l d h a v e c o n t i n u e d filming t h e p r o t e s t i f h e was t h e o n e w h o was f o r c i b l y p u s h e d t o t h e ground. T h e second issue to be considered in determining i f a p l a i n t i f f s First A m e n d m e n t rights h a v e been violated is w h e t h e r the defendant intended to chill the protected conduct by his actions. T o e s t a b l i s h t h e requisite intent, a p l a i n t i f f m u s t s h o w t h a t deterrence o f t h e p r o t e c t e d activity " w a s a substantial o r motivating factor in [the defendant's] conduct." Browne v. Gossett, 2 5 9 Fed. Appx. 9 2 8 , 9 3 0 (9th Cir. 2007)(quoting iViendocino, 192 F.3d a t 1300). I n other words, a defendant must p r o v e t h a t he " w o u l d h a v e t a k e n t h e s a m e a c t i o n e v e n i n t h e a b s e n c e " o f t h e p r o t e c t e d c o n d u c t .

Pinardv. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 4 6 7 F.3d 755, 771 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendants do n o t argue that
O f f i c e r Z y l a w y ' s a c t i o n s w e r e n o t i n t e n d e d t o d e t e r K l e i n f r o m v i d e o t a p i n g future p r o t e s t o r t h a t h e w o u l d p u s h e d K l e i n to t h e g r o u n d e v e n i f h e h a d n ' t been filming t h e p r o t e s t , a n d there is no e v i d e n c e in the record to suppOli t h i s argument e v e n i f i t were made. FUlihelIDore, issues o f intent are best left to the ultimate factfinder to decide, Harris v.Itzhaki, 183 F . 3 d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 1999)(citing

Page -6- FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

{SIB}

Lowe v. City ofiV[onrovia, 775 F.2d 9 9 8 , 1 9 9 8 (9th Clr. 1985), and Defendants offer no undisputed

facts to support a conclusion that this case should be approached differently. Based on the evidence before it, the court finds that a genuine issue o f material fact exists w i t h regard t o the questions o f whether Officer Zylawy's treatment o f Klein would chill or silence a person o f ordinary firmness from filming future protests and whether Officer Zyalwy intended to deter such conduct by his actions. Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment o n K l e i n ' s claim for violation o f his First Amendment rights. 4. Injunctive R e l i e f In his Prayer for Relief, Klein asks for a n injunction prohibiting Officer Zylawy from "approaching videographers and legal observers unless and until he is retrained i n appropriate use o f force against videographers and legal observers at lawful, nonviolent political demonstrations." (First Am. Compi. at 10.) Defendants move for summary j u d g m e n t on this damage claim i n light o f Officer Zylawy's passing. Klein concedes that, i n the absence o f Officer Zylawy, his request for injunctive relief is moot. Defendants are entitled to the dismissal o f K l e i n ' s request for injunctive relief.
Conclusion

Defendants' motion (#37) for partial summmy j u d g m e n t should be DENIED with regard to K l e i n ' s Third Claim for R e l i e f for violation o f this constitutional right to freedom o f speech and GRANTED i n all other respects.

Scheduling O r d e r T h e a b o v e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n will b e r e f e r r e d t o a U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e for review. Objections, i f any, are due no later than June 10, 2009. I f no objections are filed, review P a g e -7- F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N {SIB}

of the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement o n that date. I f objections are filed, any party may file a response within fourteen days after the date the objections are filed. Review o f the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement when the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier. DATED this 26th day o f May, 2009.

: ' J O H N V. A C O S T A Wnited States Magistrate Judge

,

Page -8- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

{SIB}