Mahon v. Pelloat
| Decision Date | 17 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-2396 |
| Parties | MAHON v. PELLOAT, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
SECTION “L” (5)
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, R Doc. 45. Plaintiff filed an opposition, R. Doc. 49, to which Defendants filed a reply, R. Doc. 52. Having considered the briefing and the applicable law, the Court now rules as follows.
Plaintiff Joseph R. Mahon, Jr. brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Jean P. Pelloat, Bruce M. Danner, and Barney Tyrney in their official and individual capacities as the Mayor of Madisonville, the Town Attorney for Madisonville, and the Chief of Police of the Madisonville Police Department, and against the Town of Madisonville. R. Doc. 1. Plaintiff, a resident of Madisonville, Louisiana, alleges that on March 12, 2020, he erected signs on the side of his house in response to a Louisiana Legislative Auditor's Advisory Services Report on the Town of Madisonville that had been published in March 2019. Id. at 3-6. Plaintiff had requested the Auditor's Report and had been involved in prior disagreements with the Mayor and the Town government. R. Doc. 49 at 3. Plaintiff asserts that the Auditor's Report identified numerous problems of public concern. R. Doc. 1 at 4-5. Plaintiff alleges that his signs were meant to comment on these problems mentioned in the Auditor's Report and other issues concerning Pelloat and Danner. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff further alleges that he believed the content of the signs to be “true, accurate, and of public concern.” Id. at 6.
Plaintiff's first sign read:
Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff's additional signs read:
Plaintiff asserts that the day after he posted his signs, Tyrney visited Plaintiff's home and advised Plaintiff that the signs were problematic due to their size and content. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Tyrney said that the signs were “opinionated” and that, according to Pelloat and Danner, they were not an appropriate political sign. Id. Plaintiff avers that he claimed his First Amendment rights, but Tyrney reiterated that the signs were not proper political signs and informed Plaintiff that he would be criminally cited if he did not comply with the sign ordinance. Id. Plaintiff alleges that, the next day, he altered the signs by turning them into several signs that were no more than six square feet each to comply with the maximum size allowed by the Town's sign ordinance, then put them back on his house. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff also alleges that he added to his signs the message “Vote Tucker, ” referring to a candidate running against Pelloat in the mayoral election. Id. at 7.
Plaintiff asserts that on March 17, 2020, after seeing Plaintiff's altered signs, Tyrney returned to Plaintiff's home and issued Plaintiff a criminal citation for a “sign violation.” Id. Plaintiff further asserts that he wrote to Tyrney and Danner requesting an explanation of his alleged violation, to which Danner responded on March 19, 2020, explaining that the violation related to Section 36-88(e)(3) of the Town's Code of Ordinances. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff avers that Section 36-88 (e)(3) of the Madisonville Code of Ordinances permits “political signs, on a temporary basis, not exceeding six square feet in sign face and six square feet in total area.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff further avers that the Code requires such signs to be removed “not later than ten days following the last election to which the sign pertains” and that the Code does not provide a definition for “political sign.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that, in addition to political signs, the Code permits signs “identifying the name of a building, ” “real estate signs, ” and “construction signs, ” but prohibits all other types of signage. Id. Plaintiff avers that the Code of Ordinances provides that anyone who violates the Code's provisions “shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500.00 and imprisonment for a . . . term not exceeding 30 days in jail, ” and up to 100 hours of community service. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff alleges that he faces a criminal prosecution for posting the signs. Id. at 9. Plaintiff claims that Pelloat and Danner, who serve the roles of judge and prosecutor, respectively, in the Mayor's Court of Madisonville, recused themselves from this matter when the prosecution against Plaintiff began. R. Doc. 49 at 22-23. Moreover, Plaintiff further alleges that on October 1, 2021, the criminal complaint against him was dismissed with prejudice. R. Doc. 49 at 19.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment by retaliating against him for protected speech in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 9. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that posting signs on his property was constitutionally protected activity and that Defendants unlawfully infringed on his First Amendment rights by sending Tyrney to Plaintiff's home and bringing criminal charges against him. Id. at 10. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause by treating him differently from others similarly situated when they threatened, cited, and prosecuted him, also in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 12. Plaintiff argues Defendants “intentionally treated [him] differently from other similarly-situated residents of Madisonville, with respect to the display of signs, ” with no rational basis for their actions. Id. at 12. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants acted as final policymakers, making the Town of Madisonville liable, and that Defendants are not protected by qualified immunity. Id. at 10, 13, 14.
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendants' conduct deprived Plaintiff of his rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States; an injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the illegal acts Plaintiff alleges; compensatory damages; damages for emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life; punitive damages; and attorney's fees and costs. Id. at 15.
The Town of Madisonville denies Plaintiff's allegations and asserts various affirmative defenses, including: Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof that the Town violated his statutory or constitutional rights; the Town, as a government entity, cannot be held vicariously liable under §1983 for the alleged constitutional torts of its employees or agents; and the Town has no official policies that caused its employees or representatives to violate an individual's constitutional rights. R. Doc. 4.
Pelloat and Tyrney deny Plaintiff's allegations and assert various affirmative defenses, including: Pelloat and Tyrney were government officials performing discretionary functions and are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known; there was no concerted action among Defendants to accomplish any unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another; and Plaintiff was guilty of comparative fault in violating the sign ordinance and failed to mitigate his damages. R. Doc. 9. Danner asserts the same affirmative defenses and argues that he is entitled to absolute immunity because he was acting in a prosecutorial capacity for the Mayor's Court. R. Doc. 11. In a Supplemental Answer, Pelloat also asserts that he is entitled to absolute immunity. R. Doc. 16.
On March 5, 2021, the Court granted Pelloat, Danner, and Tyrney's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them in their official capacities. R. Doc. 25. The Court found that Plaintiff's claims against Pelloat, Danner, and Tyrney in their official capacities merely duplicated Plaintiff's claims against the Town of Madisonville. Id. at 6.
Defendants seek summary judgment on Plaintiff's remaining claims against the Town of Madisonville and against Danner, Pelloat, and Tyrney in their individual capacities. R. Doc. 45 at 1. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not produced admissible evidence that Defendants' actions were substantially motivated by Plaintiff's exercise of constitutionally protected conduct, which is a necessary element of Plaintiff's retaliation claim. Id. at 2. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff has not produced evidence that Defendants chose to prosecute him invidiously or in bad faith, a necessary element of Plaintiff's equal protection claim. R. Doc. 45-2 at 5. Defendants alternatively argue that Pelloat and Danner were acting in their judicial and prosecutorial capacities, respectively, and are thus entitled to absolute immunity. R. Doc. 45 at 2-3.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he has produced evidence that Defendants were motivated to take adverse action against him by his exercise of free speech. R. Doc. 49 at 16. Plaintiff also argues that he has produced evidence that Defendants treated him differently than others similarly situated due to personal vindictiveness, supporting his equal protection claim. Id. at 20-21. Plaintiff further argues that Pelloat and Danner are not entitled to absolute immunity because they...
To continue reading
Request your trial