Muniz v. City of San Antonio
| Decision Date | 05 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. SA-18-cv-01002-OLG |
| Parties | Jose MUNIZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS and Angel Castello, in his individual capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Nathan W. Kellum, Mark Anthony Mangini, Center for Religious Expression, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff.
Deborah Lynne Klein, Office of the City Attorney, Litigation Division, Michael James Urbis, City of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant City of San Antonio, Texas.
Shawn K. Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick & Kosanovich, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendant Angel Castello.
On this date, the Court considered Plaintiff Jose Muniz's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 34) ("Plaintiff's Motion"), Defendant Angel Castello's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 32) ("Castello's Motion"), and Defendant City of San Antonio's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 37) (the "City's Motion"). Having reviewed the motions and the parties’ briefing, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion should be granted in part, denied in part and denied as moot in part, Castello's Motion should be granted in part and denied as moot in part, and the City's Motion should be denied in part and denied as moot in part.
In the present lawsuit, Plaintiff Jose Muniz ("Plaintiff") has asserted First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment challenges to the enforcement of an ordinance issued by the City of San Antonio (the "City") that was in effect during the dates immediately preceding and following the 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Final Four Basketball Championship in San Antonio (the "2018 Final Four"). See docket no. 1.
Plaintiff, who resides in Abilene, Texas, is a Christian evangelist who regularly hands out literature conveying evangelistic messages. See docket no. 34-1, Ex. A, ¶¶ 2-4, 8. In order to reach as many people as possible, Plaintiff regularly travels to sidewalks near well-attended events to distribute his religious literature. See id. at ¶¶ 8, 15.
On at least eleven occasions since 1997, the City has implemented "clean zone ordinances" for large portions of downtown San Antonio that designate certain areas as "clean zones" and restrict certain activities within those areas. See docket no. 8 ¶ 26. These ordinances have been passed in relation to certain sporting events hosted in the Alamodome in downtown San Antonio, and these ordinances require a license to sell and/or distribute services or goods inside the "clean zone" on or near the date of the sporting event in question. Id. at ¶ 27. Deposition testimony from Patricia Muzquiz-Cantor—the Director of the City's Convention and Sports Facilities Department—indicates that the clean zone ordinances are "primarily" intended to control ticket resale, vending activities, and the sale of non-licensed, unauthorized merchandise. See docket no. 34-1, Ex. K, at 10:20-11:17. In addition, the ordinances are intended to "preserve the health and safety of all citizens, visitors and participants, as well as preserve the aesthetic qualities of the downtown area." Docket no. 32-1 p. 1. To summarize, Ms. Muzquiz-Cantor testified that the clean zone ordinances are intended to be "a catchall for everything," including a tool to regulate commercial and other promotional activities near the Alamodome. See docket no. 34-1, Ex. K, at 10:20-11:17.
Consistent with the City's prior practices for large sporting events, the City enacted ordinance no. 2017-03-30-0186 on March 30, 2017 for the 2018 Final Four. See docket no. 32-1 (the "Clean Zone Ordinance"). The City's Clean Zone Ordinance used the same or similar language as that used in prior clean zone ordinances. See docket no. 8 at ¶ 28. Specifically, the City's Clean Zone Ordinance authorized that a portion of the downtown area of the City would be designated as a clean zone during the weeks leading up to and through the event.1 See docket no. 32-1. The Clean Zone Ordinance's title specifically states that the ordinance is intended to "regulate certain commercial activity on public property in connection" with the 2018 Final Four event. See docket no. 32-1 p. 1. Section 3 of the Clean Zone Ordinance designated the geographic boundaries of the clean zone. See id. at p. 2; docket no. 34-1, Ex. F. Section 5 of the Clean Zone Ordinance sets forth a general prohibition of certain activities within the clean zone, as follows:
See id. at p. 2. Among other things, such authorization requires the recommendation of an event sponsor, a background investigation from the San Antonio Police Department ("SAPD"), and the payment of a $750 licensing fee. See id. at pp. 2-3. Finally, Section 9 of the Clean Zone Ordinance—which lists the penalties for non-compliance—states as follows:
Any person who engages in the activity defined in Section 5 without the prior recommendation of the Event Sponsor and a Clean Zone License issued by the City ... will be subject to immediate impoundment of all tangible property related to the unauthorized commercial activity and may be subject to prosecution for a Class C misdemeanor and a fine not to exceed $2,000.00.
On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff entered the designated "clean zone" in order to distribute literature to those attending the national championship basketball game. See docket no. 34-1, Ex. A, ¶ 24. The religious literature distributed by Plaintiff on the day in question was non-commercial in nature, as it did not promote any transaction or commercial event or entity. Specifically, Plaintiff distributed 3-inch by 5-inch cards that said on one side and contained bible verses and information regarding Plaintiff's ministry on the reverse side. See docket no. 34-1, Ex. B.
During Plaintiff's distribution of his literature, Plaintiff was approached by Defendant Angel Castello ("Castello"), a sergeant in the white-collar crimes division of the SAPD. See docket no. 37-2. Castello inquired whether Plaintiff had a license, and, after Plaintiff informed Castello that he did not have a license, Castello told Plaintiff that his literature distribution violated Section 5 of the Clean Zone because it prohibited the unauthorized distribution of anything within the Clean Zone. See docket no. 37-2 pp. 2-3; docket no. 32-2. Accordingly, Castello instructed Plaintiff to stop his distribution. See id. Plaintiff informed Officer Castello that he was not selling anything as part of his distribution, but Castello informed Plaintiff that his distribution was prohibited by the Clean Zone Ordinance regardless of whether Plaintiff was engaged in a commercial activity because the ordinance also prohibited distribution of items "free of charge." See docket no. 34-1, Ex. L at 29:18-24; docket no. 32-2. Officer Castello again directed Plaintiff to Section 5 of the Clean Zone Ordinance, and Castello advised Plaintiff that he was only enforcing the ordinance as written. See id. at 28:25-29:2; docket no. 32-2. Plaintiff was issued a citation for violation of the Clean Zone Ordinance, and Plaintiff was offered the options of leaving the designated clean zone if he wished to continue his distribution or remaining in the clean zone to speak with attendees without distributing paper materials. See docket no. 32-2; docket no. 34-1, Ex. L at 22:9-25:25, 27:6-8, 34:22-35:9; docket no. 37-2. Castello also advised Plaintiff that he was welcome to challenge the ordinance in court if he felt it was unconstitutional. See docket no. 34-1, Ex. L at 28:7-21; docket no. 32-2. Plaintiff complied with Castello's instruction to leave the area, and the record indicates that Plaintiff's citation was ultimately dismissed. See docket no. 34-1, Ex. A, ¶¶ 49, 53, 55.
On September 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit alleging that the City and Officer Castello violated Plaintiff's First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by enforcing the Clean Zone Ordinance such that Plaintiff was restricted from distributing religious, non-commercial literature on a public sidewalk near the Alamodome. See docket no. 1. Plaintiff asserts claims both against the City and against Officer Castello. See id. Plaintiff seeks nominal damages of $1.00 from each Defendant, as well as his attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See id. In addition, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief from the Court with respect to his claims and injunctive relief that would prevent the City from implementing similar ordinances during subsequent major events occurring in San Antonio. See id.
On December 17, 2019, Defendant Castello moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for relief asserted against Castello.2 See docket no. 32. Among other things, Castello's Motion asserts that Plaintiff's claims against Castello for damages are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. See id. On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment on each of his claims and with respect to each form of relief requested. See docket no. 34. Similarly, on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial