Depinto v. Shader
| Decision Date | 06 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:20-cv-11-RH/MJF |
| Parties | FRANK A. DEPINTO, Plaintiff, v. ROBIN SHADER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this section 1983 action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant-the director of the Northwest Regional Library System-violated the First Amendment when on four occasions she induced police agencies to remove Plaintiff from three public libraries in Bay County, Florida, and excluded him from these public libraries. Defendant moves for summary judgment. Doc. 53. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Doc. 59. Defendant filed a reply. Doc. 60. Because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the District Court should grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment.[1] I Procedural History
Plaintiff proceeding pro se, commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Defendant Robin Shader (“Shader”) violated his First Amendment right to access public libraries. Docs. 1, 34. Shader filed an answer. After the parties conducted discovery, and before Shader filed a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a preemptive response to a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 54. Thereafter, Shader filed a motion for summary judgment with evidentiary materials. Doc. 52; Doc. 53. Plaintiff then filed an actual response to Shader's motion for summary judgment, as well as three additional responses that were deficient. Docs. 55; see Doc. 58 at 2 n.2.
The undersigned issued an order advising Plaintiff that his responses to Shader's motion for summary judgment were deficient under the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Doc. 58. The undersigned provided Plaintiff one opportunity to file one response in opposition that was compliant with the Local Rules. Id. at 4 n.3. The undersigned also informed Plaintiff that unless Plaintiff “moves for and receives approval from the court, he may not file a sur-reply.” Id. Additionally, the undersigned informed Plaintiff of the Rule 56 standard and his obligation to come forward with sufficient, evidentiary materials to withstand Shader's summary judgment motion. Id. at 2-5.
Plaintiff then submitted a memorandum-with evidentiary materials-opposing Shader's motion for summary judgment. Docs. 59, 59-1. Shader filed a reply. Plaintiff filed a sur-reply.[2] Doc. 61.
II. Undisputed Facts
The facts below are drawn from the evidence in the summary judgment record and are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, here Plaintiff.
This action arises from four separate incidents relating to Plaintiff being removed and “trespassed” from three public libraries in Bay County, Florida:
Doc. 34 at 5-14; Doc. 53 at 1-2. These three public libraries are part of a larger library system known as the Northwest Regional Library System (“NRLS”). The NRLS is managed by the Bay County Board of County Commissioners. During the relevant period, Shader was the Director of the NRLS, and her office was located at the Bay County public library.
During the relevant period, the NRLS had a code of conduct that was accessible to its patrons, including Plaintiff. Doc. 52-2 at 1; see Doc. 52-1 p. 20 lines 12-21.[5] Plaintiff was aware of the NRLS's code of conduct and the type of conduct that was prohibited. Doc. 52-1 p. 20 lines 12-21. Specifically, the NRLS's code of conduct prohibits “[a]ny behavior that is disruptive to Library use.” Doc. 52-2 at 1.
Among other things, it prohibits:
Beginning in 2014, Plaintiff regularly visited the various libraries within the NRLS to access newspapers, DVDs, books, legal resources, and computers. Doc. 52-1 p. 64 line 25 to p. 65 line 3.
From 2014 through February 27, 2018, the NRLS library staff, including Shader, documented their concerns regarding Plaintiff's conduct towards staff and patrons. Specifically, starting in April 2014, a reference librarian, Darby Syrkin, wrote a letter to Shader regarding Syrkin's interactions with Plaintiff. Doc. 52-7 at 13.
Syrkin noted that Plaintiff was argumentative and demanding during staff interactions, and Syrkin personally experienced Plaintiff's argumentative and demanding behavior. Id.
A few months later, in September 2014, Lynn Elliot-who is in charge of reference and information services at the Bay County public library-wrote an incident report after she defused a confrontation between Plaintiff and a teenage patron. Id. at 25-26. Elliot noted that Plaintiff yelled at the teenage patron because the patron said something that offended Plaintiff. Id. at 26. Plaintiff demanded that Elliot call the police, but Elliot declined.
In January 2016, Shader drafted an incident report regarding Plaintiff and another library patron, George Betsey. Id. at 1. Plaintiff and Betsey previously had encountered each other outside the library, and Plaintiff had been carrying a stick inside the Bay County public library as “protection” from Betsey. Doc. 52-1 p. 69 lines 23-25 to p. 70 line 1; Doc. 52-7 at 1-2. Shader was concerned about how Plaintiff might act if Plaintiff saw Betsey in the library. Doc. 52-7 at 1. Shader asked the NRLS security officer to speak to Plaintiff regarding his conduct. Id. In response to Shader's concerns, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Shader informing her that he would not bring the stick into the library because he had obtained pepper spray, which he would “have ready” in case Plaintiff saw Betsey in the library. Id. at 2.
In February 2016, Plaintiff had altercations with other library patrons over the noise level in the Bay County public library's computer lab. Doc. 52-7 at 9-12. After Plaintiff wrote a letter to Shader regarding the noise in the computer lab, Shader met with Plaintiff and reminded him that he should not confront other patrons directly. Id. at 9-10. Shader also reminded Plaintiff that he should contact library staff about rule violations and that he should not argue with the library staff over their decision regarding noise level. Id. In response, Plaintiff raised his voice and became argumentative with Shader. Id. Shader advised Plaintiff that if he continued to argue with staff or other customers, he could be removed from the library. Id. at 10.
In October 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint against two librarians who worked at the Bay County public library. Doc. 52-7 at 21-23. Samantha Hudson, one of the librarians involved, also sent an email to Shader explaining the situation. Plaintiff asked librarian Khelsea Rantanen to permit him to use one of the two research computers and scanners in the library. Id. at 21-22. When Rantanen did not immediately accede to Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff began repeating his request and, according to Hudson, acting aggressively toward Rantanen. Id. at 21-23. Hudson intervened to deescalate the situation. After Plaintiff had been permitted to use one of the computers, he returned to the reference desk to confront Hudson. When Hudson advised Plaintiff that he could not act aggressively towards library staff, he raised his voice saying, “You're a liar, that's bad customer service, you can't talk to me that way.” Id.; Doc. 52 at 23 ().
In March 2017, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Shader explaining that he had two negative interactions with Rantanen. Doc. 52-2 at 16-17. According to Plaintiff, on or about March 19, 2017, he fell into one of Rantanen's “ego trap[s].” Id. at 17. Plaintiff advised Rantanen that he had used the computer and scanner, and Rantanen indicated she had already logged that information.[6] Because Rantanen did not thank him, Plaintiff felt like an idiot. Id.
Later that same week, on March 22, 2017, Plaintiff requested to use the staple remover. Id. at 16. Plaintiff became “infuriated” when Rantanen paused in her conversation with Plaintiff, which Plaintiff felt was a “sadistic, ” “contrived, ” personal attack on Plaintiff in order to make him say “please.” Id. Plaintiff proposed that Shader instruct Rantanen to not “approach [Plaintiff] again, unless absolutely necessary.” Id. at 17.
The following month, on April 23, 2017, Plaintiff had an altercation with librarian Laura Moree, because Plaintiff left his personal items unattended in the library. Doc. 52-2 at 18. Moree attempted to explain to Plaintiff that he could not leave his personal items unattended because it created a security risk, but Plaintiff found this to be “harassing.” Doc. 52-1 p. 76 lines 8-16. Plaintiff became frustrated with Moree, pointed his finger at her, and told her to leave him alone. Doc. 52-2 at 18.
On April 24, 2017, another incident occurred between Plaintiff and Bay County public library staff. Id. at 19-20; Doc....
To continue reading
Request your trial