Parsons v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
| Citation | 801 F.3d 701 |
| Decision Date | 17 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–1848.,14–1848. |
| Parties | Mark PARSONS; Brandon Bradley; Scott Gandy; Robert Hellin ; Joseph F. Bruce; Joseph W. Utsler, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
ARGUED:Saura J. Sahu, Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellants. Lindsey Powell, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF:Saura J. Sahu, Emily C. Palacios, Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, Michael J. Steinberg, Daniel S. Korobkin, ACLU Fund of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan, Howard Hertz, Hertz Schram PC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellants. Lindsey Powell, Michael S. Raab, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before: ROGERS and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; SARGUS, District Judge.*
Plaintiffs appeal the district court's dismissal of this action for lack of standing. We REVERSE and REMAND.
This is a case about fans of the Insane Clown Posse, who call themselves “Juggalos,” and their ability to bring a lawsuit against government law enforcement agencies for alleged violations of their constitutional rights. The Insane Clown Posse is a commercially successful musical art group whose fans self-identify as “Juggalos.” Juggalos are easily spotted because they frequently display, on person or property, insignia representative of the band. In 2011, the National Gang Intelligence Center—an informational center operating under the Federal Bureau of Investigation—released a congressionally-mandated report on gang activity that included a section on Juggalos. The report identified Juggalos as a “hybrid gang” and relayed information about criminal activity committed by Juggalo subsets. Plaintiff–Juggalos allege that they subsequently suffered violations of their First and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights at the hands of state and local law enforcement officers who were motivated to commit the injuries in question due to the identification of Juggalos as a criminal gang. Plaintiffs filed suit against the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. For the reasons that follow we REVERSE the dismissal and REMAND the case for consideration of Defendants' Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) arguments.
Because this case is before us on a motion to dismiss, we “must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party.” Kardules v. City of Columbus, 95 F.3d 1335, 1346 (6th Cir.1996) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) ). When considering whether pleadings make out a justiciable case for want of standing, our analysis must be confined to the four corners of the complaint. Id. at 1347 n. 4.
The Insane Clown Posse (“ICP”) is a musical group formed in 1991 and based in Farmingham Hills, Michigan. The group is well known for elaborate live performances and has enjoyed substantial commercial success. ICP's songs “often use harsh language and themes” that deal with social, political, religious or counter-cultural issues. (R. 1 ¶ 22). Specifically, ICP's music ranges from songs with “hopeful, life-affirming themes about the wonders of life and the support that Juggalos give to one another,” to “horrorcore hip hop”—music that “uses very harsh language to tell nightmare-like stories with an underlying message that horrible things happen to people who choose evil over good.” (Id. ¶ 3).
Members of ICP's dedicated musical fan base—fans of ICP and other bands on ICP's independent record label, Psychopathic Records—are widely known as “Juggalos.” (Id. ¶ 24). These displays of identity include the practice of painting their faces to look like clowns and often incorporate the “hatchetman” logo—a distinctive Juggalo symbol.
Plaintiffs self-identify as Juggalos. “Juggalos gather and associate with each other to listen to ICP's music, to share ideas surrounding the music, to express their support of or interest in the ideas that ICP expresses through its music, to express their affiliation with ICP and the artists on its record label, and to express their affiliation with one another.” (Id. ¶ 25).
Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is a department of the United States government. Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) is an agency housed within the DOJ. In 2005, Congress directed the U.S. Attorney General, through Public Law 109–162, 119 Stat. 2960, to “establish a National Gang Intelligence Center (‘NGIC’) and gang information database to be housed at and administered by the [FBI] to collect, analyze, and disseminate gang activity information from the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the Drug Enforcement Administration, other federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement, prosecutors, and correctional officers.” (Id. ¶ 100). In the same federal statute, Congress directed the NGIC to make the information available to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, among others. The statute also directed the NGIC to annually submit a report to Congress on gang activity. “The DOJ promptly established the Center in response to Congress's direction and ... the FBI has administered the Center since its inception.” (Id. ¶ 101).
In 2011, the NGIC published its 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment (the “2011 NGIC Report,” or “Report”), in which the NGIC summarized and reported information it had collected and analyzed in relation to gangs. “According to the [NGIC], the [2011 NGIC Report] ‘supports [DOJ] strategic objectives 2.2 (to reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime) and 2.4 (to reduce the threat, trafficking, use and related violence of illegal drugs).’ ” (Id. ¶ 121). The 2011 NGIC Report “is based on federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and corrections agency intelligence....” (Id. at ¶ 122). From its publication through at least the time of the filing of the Complaint in this case, the 2011 NGIC Report has been available to the general public on the NGIC website. See https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011–national–gang–threat–assessment.
In the 2011 NGIC Report, Juggalos are classified as a “loosely-organized hybrid gang.” (Id. ¶ 132). The Report defines hybrid-gangs as “non-traditional gangs with multiple affiliations” that “are adopting national symbols and gang members often crossover from gang to gang.” (Id. ¶ 131). The Report further states the following:
(Id. ¶ 140). The Report also notes that Arizona, California, Pennsylvania and Utah are the only states officially recognizing Juggalos as a gang, but that Juggalo gang-related criminal activity is reported in other states.
On July 9, 2013, Parsons was riding with a driver-trainee in a semi-truck on an interstate freeway outside Knoxville, Tennessee for his small trucking business, entitled “Juggalo Express LLC.” The side of Parsons' truck was decorated with a large, visible ICP “hatchetman” logo. (Id. ¶¶ 31–34). Parsons and the trainee pulled into the bypass lane of a weigh station, where a Tennessee State Trooper ordered them to stop and park for a safety inspection. Once they parked, the State Trooper approached Parsons and asked if he was a Juggalo. (Id. ¶¶ 34–37). The State Trooper indicated that he detained Parsons for an inspection due to the hatchetman logo on the truck. He then indicated that he considered Juggalos to be a criminal gang because of the DOJ's designation. (Id. ¶¶ 38–39). He proceeded to detain and question Parsons about whether he had any axes, hatchets or other similar instruments in the vehicle. He searched the vehicle and continued to question Parsons for about an hour, during which time he did not find any weapons or contraband and did not issue a ticket or a citation to Parsons. (Id. ¶¶ 40–41).
Bradley has been detained numerous times by law enforcement officers in California due to visible Juggalo insignia on his person or clothing. In September 2012, a Citrus Heights, California Police Officer in a patrol car stopped Bradley while he was biking. Bradley's Juggalo tattoos were visible and he was wearing a Juggalo merchandise T-shirt. (Id. ¶¶ 47–48). The officer detained Bradley for fifteen minutes while questioning him about being a Juggalo. (Id. ¶ 52). “Later, an ex-Citrus Heights Police Officer told Bradley that the ex-officer heard about the above encounter” and also told Bradley “the tattoos are gang-affiliated.” (Id. ¶ 54).
In October 2012, Bradley was stopped by a deputy from the Sacramento Sheriff's Department while walking across a street in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohio v. Raimondo
...must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Parsons v. U.S. Dept. of Justice , 801 F.3d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ). Glennb......
-
S.B. by and through M.B. v. Lee
...F.3d 787, 796 (6th Cir. 2009), because it "is not synonymous with causation sufficient to support a claim," Parsons v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 801 F.3d 701, 715 (6th Cir. 2015). Also, traceability does not require Governor Lee's executive order to be a proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged......
-
Cahoo v. Fast Enters. LLC
..."causation to support standing is not synonymous with causation sufficient to support a claim") (quoting Parsons v. United States Dep't of Justice , 801 F.3d 701, 715 (6th Cir. 2015) ). In addition, the Court determined that the factual record was not sufficient to address the effect of Cah......
-
Knight v. Montgomery County, Tennessee
...‘the rule, policy or law in question has explicitly prohibited or proscribed conduct on the[ir] part." (citing Parsons v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 801 F.3d 701, 711 (6th Cir. 2015) )). So even if Defendant were correct that Plaintiff Knight in particular lacked standing, that would not depri......
-
UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS: WHY WE NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT STIFLES THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM FOREIGNERS ONLINE.
...unlawful behavior was the "plaintiff's exercise of their First Amendment rights."). (153) See, e.g., Parsons v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 801 F.3d 701, 711 (6th Cir. 2015) ("Specifically, where claims of a chilling effect are accompanied by concrete allegations of reputational harm, the plaintif......