England v. Jackson County Public Library
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:21-cv-00019-TWP-DML |
| Citation | 596 F.Supp.3d 1164 |
| Parties | Richard ENGLAND, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Gavin Minor Rose, ACLU of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.
Alexander Phillip Will, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Lonnie D. Johnson, Yvette C. Kirchoff, Clendening Johnson & Bohrer, P.C., Bloomington, IN, for Defendant.
ENTRY ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by Plaintiff Richard England ("England") (Filing No. 22) and Defendant Jackson County Public Library ("JCPL") (Filing No. 31). Jackson initiated this action alleging violations of his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after he was banned from his local public library for leaving a politically-themed poem at the circulation desk. Shortly thereafter, Jackson moved for judgment as a matter of law. JCPL cross-moves for summary judgment asserting that it possesses the authority to enforce a code of conduct that restricts speech inconsistent with the library's purpose. For the following reasons, the Court grants England's Motion and denies JCPL's Cross-Motion.
The library is an enduring public institution entrusted with a duty that—while oft-taken for granted—is essential to any functioning society: serving the general public's information needs. Beyond this critical function, public libraries provide a host of free services to its patrons that not only strengthens the bonds of a community, but it also supplies invaluable resources and opportunities. Severing access to such an integral institution is no minor consequence precisely because of the importance of the library's role.
England, a sixty-eight-year-old man, is a resident of Jackson County, Indiana, where he lives a short distance outside the City of Seymour, Indiana (Filing No. 22-2 at 1). JCPL operates multiple public libraries in Jackson County with the main branch located in Seymour ("the Seymour Library") (Filing No. 22-1 at 9). The other two branches are in Crothersville and Medora as well as a traveling book mobile. Id. England was a regular visitor to the Seymour Library (Filing No. 31-6 at 6, 21). Living alone and on a limited income provided by the supplemental security income program, England would visit the Seymour Library in lieu of paid entertainment (Filing No. 22-2 at 1).
On November 16, 2020, England visited the Seymour Library to return several items and found several new DVDs that he wished to check out (Filing No. 22-2 at 6). That day, England brought with him an original poem, which he authored, called "The Red Mean." Id. The Red Mean was a politically-themed poem that read:
England averred that he had written the poem to "express [his] belief that the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic by then-President Trump and his followers, including their apparent opposition to rudimentary safety measures ... was leading and would continue to lead to the unnecessary loss of life." (Filing No. 22-2 at 6.) England intended to give the poem to an employee of the Seymour Library that he was friendly with and who he assumed would enjoy the poem. Id. at 7. The employee was not present, so England decided to place the poem in a box on the circulation desk that contained medical face masks intended for library patrons. Id. The box containing the masks did not possess a lid or plastic film, so he dropped the poem into the open box on the circulation desk to share his political opinions with the Seymour Library staff and the members of the community at large. Id.
About 15 to 30 minutes after England left the Seymour Library, a library employee was providing facial coverings to library customers and when she reached inside the mask box, she noticed the poem entitled "The Red Mean." (Filing No. 31-2 ¶ 16.) The poem was unsigned and she did not recognize handwriting. The employee suspected (and later confirmed through video) that England was the writer. The library staff was confused and scared. Their fear was enhanced by the political climate surrounding the 2020 election and anxiety surrounding the pandemic. (Filing No. 31-2 ¶ 24.)
England left the Seymour Library without incident; however, when he returned home there was a voicemail from an officer with the Seymour Police Department on his telephone. (Filing No. 22-2 at 8.) Through the voicemail message, England was informed that he was "banned from the Library for the rest of [his] life," and was warned that if he were to return, he would be "arrested for criminal trespass." Id. After traveling to the police department headquarters and speaking with the officer who left the voicemail message, England was informed again of the ban because he left the poem at the circulation desk and was told that he would be arrested should he return to the Seymour Library. Id.
Upon returning home, England telephoned the Seymour Library. Id. He spoke with Mary Reed ("Reed"), the Seymour Library Administrator (Filing No. 22-1 at 6). Reed informed England that "[w]e don't do politics at the library." (Filing No. 22-2 at 8.) For a third time, England was told he was banned from the Seymour Library. Reed informed England he was being banned for leaving the poem and further explained that she had spoken with JCPL's attorney and was assured that the Seymour Library could take this action against him. Id. at 9. England was not given an opportunity to explain his poem or his reasoning for leaving it at the circulation desk. He was not given a written notice or justification for his ban nor was he, at the time, informed of the process by which he could challenge the decision. Id.
JCPL maintains a Property and Building Use Policy ("Property Policy") (Filing No. 22-1 at 56). The Property Policy outlines the rules and conduct for its facilities and indicates when a library patron may be banned for violating its rules by engaging in prohibited conduct. Id. at 19. Among its rules, the Property Policy states, Id. at 57. The policy also states, "Habitual offenders may be banned from library property indefinitely." Id. The Property Policy identifies an extensive list of specific behaviors that are expressly prohibited, including "Staring at, stalking, intimidation and threatening behavior," as well as "Abusive, threatening, or obscene language." Id.
On January 26, 2021, England filed his Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against JCPL, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution for banning him from the Seymour Library and failing to provide notice and opportunity to be heard before such a decision was taken (Filing No. 1). On April 14, 2021, he moved for summary judgment (Filing No. 22). On May 12, 2021, JCPL responded to the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment (Filing No. 31).
The purpose of summary judgment is to "pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.Com, Inc. , 476 F.3d 487, 489–90 (7th Cir. 2007). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews "the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Zerante v. DeLuca , 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). "However, inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture will not defeat a summary judgment motion." Dorsey v. Morgan Stanley , 507 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, "[a] party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rest on its pleadings, but must affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations, that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires trial." Hemsworth , 476 F.3d at 490 (citation omitted). "The opposing party cannot meet this burden with conclusory statements or speculation but only with appropriate citations to relevant admissible evidence."
Sink v. Knox County Hosp. , 900 F. Supp. 1065, 1072 (S.D. Ind. 1995) (citations omitted).
"In much the same way that a court is not required to scour the record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment, nor is it permitted to conduct a paper trial on the merits of [the] claim." Ritchie v. Glidden Co. , 242 F.3d 713, 723 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations and quotation marks omitted). "[N]either the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties nor the existence of some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Chiaramonte v. Fashion Bed Grp., Inc. , 129 F.3d 391, 395 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
These same standards apply even when each side files a motion for summary judgment. The existence of cross-motions for summary judgment does not imply that...
To continue reading
Request your trial