Draego v. City of Charlottesville

Filing 29

ORDER denying 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Plaintiff's request to waive security for the injunction is granted. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/18/2016. (mab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION
JOSEPH DRAEGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00057

ORDER
By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge

In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is ORDERED that:
(1)

Defendant’s motion to dismiss/for summary judgment is DENIED. (Dkt. 4).

(2)

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. (Dkt. 8). Pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), the City of Charlottesville (including its Council,
officers, and employees) is PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing—against Plaintiff
and any other speaker—Rule D.9(g) of the Charlottesville City Council Meeting Procedures,
insofar as Rule D.9(g) prohibits “defamatory attacks on . . . groups” during “matters by the
public” comment periods at City Council meetings. This injunction does not affect any other
rule of the City Council.
The Court preliminarily finds that the group defamation ban in Rule D.9(g) violates the
First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, both facially and as applied to
Plaintiff. On the current record, the Rule likely offends the First Amendment because it (A) is
subject to strict scrutiny and lacks a compelling governmental interest, and (B) is overbroad.
The Rule likely violates the Due Process Clause because it is vague.
Thus, Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his free speech and due process
challenges to the Rule, and he would suffer irreparable harm if the Rule was not preliminary
enjoined. Harm to the City, if any, is minimal, and the public interest heavily favors protecting
1

the constitutional rights of Plaintiff and other speakers.
(3)

Plaintiff’s request to waive security for the injunction is GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to
pro se Plaintiff.

18th
Entered this ______ day of November, 2016.

2