Perlot v. Green
| Decision Date | 30 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:22-cv-00183-DCN |
| Citation | 609 F.Supp.3d 1106 |
| Parties | Peter PERLOT, Mark Miller, Ryan Alexander, and Richard Seamon, Plaintiffs, v. C. Scott GREEN, President of the University of Idaho ; Blaine Eckles, Dean of Students; Erin Agidius, Director of the Office of Civil Rights & Investigations; and Lindsay Ewan, Deputy Director of the Office of Civil Rights & Investigations, all individually and all in their official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Greggory R. Walters, Pro Hac Vice, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, AZ, Mathew W. Hoffmann, Pro Hac Vice, Michael R. Ross, Pro Hac Vice, Tyson C. Langhofer, Pro Hac Vice, Alliance Defending Freedom, Lansdowne, VA, Matthew C. Williams, Williams Law, P.L.L.C., Meridian, ID, for Plaintiffs.
Katharine B. Brereton, Peter C. Erbland, Lake City Law Group PLLC, Coeur d'Alene, ID, for Defendants.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Peter Perlot, Mark Miller, and Ryan Alexander's1 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing ("PI Motion"). Dkt. 7. The Court held oral argument on May 25, 2022, and took the matter under advisement. Upon review, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
This case present questions of immense import to all Americans. It involves the clash of two groups' constitutional rights. The Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion are enshrined in the Constitution. So too, is the right to Equal Protection and to be free from unlawful discrimination and harassment. Much can be said about the intersection, and overlapping nature, of these rights and the degree to which one right impacts another. An oft-quoted statement—attributed to various Supreme Court Justices and legal scholars—explains that the "right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." Chafee, Freedom of Speech in War Time , 32 Harv. L. Rev. 932, 957 (1919). The Constitution is a shield to protect one's fundamental inalienable rights. It is not a sword to hew down the fundamental inalienable rights of others. For instance, one cannot hide behind their constitutional right to free speech in order to shout "fire" in a crowded church to stop others from exercising their constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Courts at every level have been tackling the difficult interplay between various constitutional rights for decades. And the rate at which Courts are being asked to intervene is ever increasing. The Court is cognizant of the fact that in enforcing or protecting certain rights, other rights may be impinged. That said, this case does not appear to present an overly "close call." While universities have a duty to protect students who raise concerns about harassment, they also owe a duty to those accused of the conduct—particularly where, as here, the alleged conduct giving rise to the purported harassment is protected speech. It should be noted, that despite the above introduction, this case does not directly involve Jane Doe (the individual who raised concerns) or her constitutional rights. She is not a party to this lawsuit. She makes no claims in this case. Instead, this case involves the Plaintiffs, their constitutional rights, and their claims that the University of Idaho has treated them unfairly in its quest to protect the rights of Jane Doe. Of course, the Court is not so naive as to suggest that Jane Doe's rights have no part to play in this case. They most certainly do. But to point out the obvious once again, she is not a party to this case.
Plaintiffs Perlot, Miller, and Alexander filed their original Complaint on April 25, 2022. Dkt. 1. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege Defendants2 issued no-contact orders against them in violation of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs' PI Motion followed the next day. Dkt. 7.3
Due to the expedited nature of the relief sought, the Court's law clerk held an informal conference with counsel on May 4, 2022, to discuss the best way to proceed with these matters. The Court and Counsel agreed to an expedited briefing schedule on the PI Motion, set the motion for hearing, and shortened the District of Idaho's consent process. Dkts. 13, 14.
On May 10, 2022, Defendants issued a limited contact order4 against another individual—Plaintiff Professor Richard Seamon. In light of this development, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on May 17, 2022, adding Seamon as a plaintiff. Dkt. 17. In conjunction with this filing, the parties filed a "Motion to Treat Amended Verified Complaint as Operative Pleading." Dkt. 18. In this submission, the parties jointly move the Court to consider the Amended Complaint as the operative pleading for the PI Motion. The parties explain that the Amended Complaint was necessary in light of Defendants' issuance of the no-contact order against Seamon, but reiterate that the PI Motion "relied on the facts in the original verified complaint, [ ] and the operative facts and legal claims for purposes of the pending motion remain the same between the pleadings." Dkt. 18, at 2.
It is well-settled that, "[An] amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent." Forsyth v. Humana, Inc. , 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty. , 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Nevertheless, there is no need for Plaintiffs to refile the PI Motion as the issues raised therein remain the same between both complaints. The parties are in agreement on this, and caselaw supports their position. See, e.g. , Richardson v. Trump , 496 F. Supp. 3d 165, 176 n.14 (D.D.C. 2020) (); 16 Front St. LLC v. Miss. Silicon, LLC , 2015 WL 4665223, at *5 n.8 (N.D. Miss. July 30, 2015) ( .
In short, the Joint Motion is GRANTED, and the Court will treat Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as the operative Complaint for purposes of determining the PI Motion. The facts in the following section come from the Amended Complaint.
On April 1, 2022, the law school at the University of Idaho held a "moment of community" in response to an anti-LGBTQ+ slur that had been left anonymously on a whiteboard in one of its classrooms in Boise, Idaho. Students, faculty, and staff from the law school gathered in front of the Moscow, Idaho, campus to express support for all students.
Plaintiffs were present at the event. Plaintiffs Perlot, Miller, and Alexander are law students and members of the University's chapter of the Christian Legal Society ("CLS").6 Plaintiff Seamon is a professor at the law school and the CLS faculty advisor.
At the event, Plaintiffs gathered in prayer—with members of their society and others—in a showing of support for the LGBTQ+ community. After the prayer concluded, Jane Doe7 approached the group and asked those present why the CLS constitution affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman. Plaintiff Miller explained that CLS adhered to the traditional biblical view of marriage and sexuality—including the concept that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Jane Doe expressed her opinion that the Bible did not support such a conclusion. Miller explained further that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman in several places and that it condemns homosexuality—along with all other sins. Plaintiff Seamon purportedly affirmed Miller's explanation of CLS's position on marriage.
According to both sides, the parties then parted ways without further comment.
Shortly after the event, Plaintiff Perlot left a handwritten note on Jane Doe's carrel. The note read—in its entirety: Dkt. 20-1, at 10.8
A few days later, on April 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Perlot and Alexander attended an event with other students regarding the American Bar Association's accreditation of the law school. According to Plaintiffs, Jane Doe and others raised concerns about CLS and its members—namely that they held religious beliefs that were bigoted and anti-LGBTQ+.9 Plaintiff Alexander then spoke up, defended CLS, and stated that the biggest instance of discrimination he had seen on campus was actually against CLS and the administration's failure to timely recognize and register it as a group.
That same day, several students staged "walkouts" for two of the courses taught by Plaintiff Seamon—seemingly in response to his participation at the event on April 1.
Also on April 4, Defendant Lindsay Ewan—Deputy Director of OCRI—interviewed Miller about the events that took place during the law school's community event on April 1.
Three days later, on April 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Perlot, Miller, and Alexander received no-contact orders from OCRI. Apparently, Jane Doe reported to OCRI that Plaintiffs' actions at the events described above left her feeling "targeted and unsafe." Dkt. 16, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Or. Tool, Inc. v. IronCraft, LLC
...and the Court declines to find that Oregon Tool has clearly shown that the acts alleged are the result of misappropriation. Perlot, 609 F.Supp.3d at 1116 (“a injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing of evidence”). [2] There is another incident identified in Paulsen's declaration,......