Jones v. City of Memphis
| Decision Date | 13 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–2776–STA–dkv.,10–2776–STA–dkv. |
| Parties | Richard JONES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS; Bridgett Handy–Clay, Public Records Coordinator for the City of Memphis; and Jill Madajczky, Senior Assistant City Attorney for Memphis, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Edmund J. Schmidt, III, Law Office of Eddie Schmidt, Tricia Ruth Herzfeld, American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff.
Bruce McMullen, Shannon Wiley, Stacie S. Winkler, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Memphis, TN, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendants' Jill Madajczky and the City of Memphis's (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (D.E. # 47) filed on April 18, 2011. Plaintiff filed a Response (D.E. # 48) on May 12, 2011. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff initially filed his Complaint on August 24, 2010, in the Middle District of Tennessee (D.E. # 1). He also named a plethora of Defendants, but he took a nonsuit and voluntarily dismissed Phil Bredesen, Governor of Tennessee; Robert Cooper, Jr., Tennessee Attorney General; David Hl. Lillard, Jr., Tennessee State Treasurer; Justin Wilson, Tennessee State Comptroller; Tre Hargett, Tennessee Secretary of State; Joseph Barnes, Director of Legal Services for the Tennessee General Assembly; Gwendolyn Sims Davis, Tennessee Commissioner of General Services; and A.C. Warton, Jr., Mayor of Memphis. (D.E. # 15.) Therefore, the remaining defendants were the City of Memphis and Bridgett Handy–Clay (“Handy–Clay”), Public Records Coordinator for the City of Memphis. Next, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (D.E. # 25) on October 20, 2010, which added a third Defendant: Jill Madajczky, Senior Assistant City Attorney for Memphis. The parties then agreed that venue was improper in the Middle District of Tennessee and that proper venue lay in the Western District of Tennessee, so Judge Trauger transferred the case to this Court. (D.E. # 26–29.)
Handy–Clay filed two Motions to Dismiss (D.E. # 31, 43) on November 2, 2010, and January 12, 2011, respectively. However, the parties stipulated as to the dismissal of all claims against Handy–Clay and the office of Public Records Coordinator for the City of Memphis (D.E. # 46) on March 22, 2011. Therefore, the defendants remaining in this case are the City of Memphis (“Memphis”) and Jill Madajczky (“Madajczky”). Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (D.E. # 47) on April 18, 2011, and Plaintiff filed his Response (D.E. # 48) on May 12, 2011.
The following facts are taken as true for purposes of this Motion. Plaintiff resides in Solon, Ohio, and works for the Reverend Al Sharpton (“Rev. Sharpton”) as the Midwest Director of National Action Network (“NAN”). (Am. Compl. ¶ 11.) Founded by Rev. Sharpton in 1991, NAN promotes a civil rights agenda that includes the fight for social justice and “one standard of justice and decency for all people regardless of race, religion, national origin, and gender.” ( Id. ¶ 12.) As Midwest Director, Plaintiff engages in investigations of various activities throughout the country. ( Id. ¶ 13.) His investigations brought him to the granting of a government contract in Memphis, Tennessee. ( Id. ¶ 14.)
On May 10, 2010, Plaintiff spoke with Handy–Clay and then emailed her the following request:
I am the Midwest Director for [NAN] and [Rev. Sharpton]. [Rev. Sharpton] has ask[ed] me to submit a public records request for the following records[: a]n email copy (pdf) of the wining bid for the following RFQ # 2957 for the State Advocacy/State Lobbying Services December 2008[sic].
( Id. ¶ 15.) Handy–Clay responded to Plaintiff that same day and denied his request because Plaintiff was not a citizen of Tennessee as required by Tenn.Code Ann. § 10–7–503(a)(1):
This email acknowledges receipt of your request for a copy of the winning bid for the following RFQ # 2957. Since it does not appear that you are a Tennessee resident, I must deny your request pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 10–7–503, [which] states: “... open for personal inspection by any citizen of Tennessee ...”
( Id. ¶ 16 (emphasis omitted).) Plaintiff was then told to contact Madajczky to discuss his public records request. ( Id. ¶ 17.) After a telephone conversation with Madajczky on May 12, 2010, she sent an email confirmation of their conversation's contents:
As discussed on the telephone, your open records request is being denied pursuant to the provisions of Tenn.Code Ann[.] § 10–7–503, which provides [that] any “citizen of Tennessee” has the right to inspect and/or copy public records. This office denies all public record requests from any individual or entity outside of the State of Tennessee.
( Id.) Plaintiff avers that Handy–Clay and Madajczky's denial of his request reflects Memphis' ongoing custom, policy, and practice of enforcing the unconstitutional provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 10–7–503(a) to deny non-Tennessee citizens' requests for public records. ( Id. ¶ 17b.) Plaintiff states that he was forced to file this present lawsuit to gain access to his requested records. Moreover, he anticipates making additional future public records requests to obtain government records from Memphis and other Tennessee governmental entities. ( Id. ¶ 18.)
Various governmental agencies throughout Tennessee use this Tennessee citizen requirement (“the Citizens Only Requirement”) to deny access to open records requests presented by those who do not live in Tennessee. ( Id. ¶ 19.) The Tennessee Public Records Act (“TPRA”) included the Citizens Only Requirement when it was first enacted in 1957. ( Id. ¶ 20.) Furthermore, the Tennessee's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency posts on its website that Tenn.Code Ann. § 10–7–503 limits public records requests to Tennessee citizens. ( Id.) In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee (“ACLU–TN”), the Tennessee Coalition on Open Government, and other public interest grounds testified in front of the Open Records Sub–Committee of the Special Joint Committee on Open Records, explaining that the provision was a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution and that it should be repealed. ( Id.)
However, the Tennessee Attorney General's Office issued two opinions in 1999 and 2001 stating that the Citizens Only Requirement in Tenn.Code Ann. § 10–7–503 was constitutionally enforceable. ( Id. ¶ 20a.) The 2001 opinion referred the question regarding the constitutionality the Citizens Only Requirement to the 1999 opinion.
In 2008, the Tennessee General Assembly amended the TPRA, but they failed to repeal the Citizens Only Requirement. ( Id. ¶ 21.) As early as January of 2007, ACLU–TN began monitoring denial of access to Tennessee's public records on the basis of the Citizen Only Requirement. ( Id. ¶ 22.) Since then, ACLU–TN has been made aware of numerous situations where both in-state and out-of-state residents were denied access to Tennessee's open public records because they could not or would not prove that the requesting party was a Tennessee citizen. ( Id. ¶ 23.) In more than one instance, the requested records were produced upon the threat of or just after suit was filed. ( Id.) Plaintiff avers that “[i]f relief is not granted in the present litigation, records will continue to be withheld from journalists, authors, business people [,] and concerned citizens who have an interest in Tennessee events in violation of their constitutional rights.” ( Id. ¶ 24.)
The Amended Complaint contains two Counts for Relief. First, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ( Id. at 6.) In support thereof, he cites the Constitution and several cases from the Supreme Court and Third Circuit. ( Id. ¶ 27–31.) According to Plaintiff, the TPRA limits access to public records to only “citizens of Tennessee,” and this limitation deprives him of the ability to engage in his calling as a civil rights advocate. ( Id. ¶ 33.) The denial of his request for Memphis contract bid records deprived him of his ability to engage in “effective advocacy and participation in the political process” because he could not access the information he sought. ( Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiff concludes that Memphis “does not have a substantial reason for its discriminatory policy, nor can the State of Tennessee or any municipality have a substantial reason for the continued enforcement of this unconstitutional law.” ( Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff states that the Citizens Only Requirement prevents Plaintiff from gaining access to the records he seeks and violates his guaranteed rights in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. ( Id. ¶ 35.)
Second, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his rights under the Commerce Clause as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ( Id. at 8.) In support thereof, Plaintiff cites the Constitution and several Supreme Court cases interpreting the Dormant Commerce Clause. ( Id. ¶ 38–41.) He states that the TPRA discriminates against interstate commerce because it restricts access to public records to Tennessee citizens and serves no legitimate state interest. ( Id. ¶ 42.) It also discriminated against Plaintiff in his role as a civil rights advocate: he cannot access the public records he seeks because he does not reside in Tennessee. ( Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiff then concludes that the Citizens Only Requirement violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. ( Id. ¶ 44.)
A defendant may move to dismiss a claim for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”). However, because Defendants filed an Answer (D.E. # 45) before filing this Motion to Dismiss, the Court will treat this Motion as a motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial