Picard v. Clark
| Decision Date | 02 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | 19cv3059 (DLC) |
| Parties | MICHAEL PICARD, Plaintiff, v. DARCEL D. CLARK, in her official capacity as District Attorney for Bronx County and MICHAEL MAGLIANO, in his official capacity as Chief of Public Safety for the New York Unified Court System, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
APPEARANCES
For the plaintiff:
Brian Hauss
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
For defendant Darcel D. Clark:
Zachary W. Carter
Corporation Counsel for the City of New York
Susan P. Scharfstein
Of Counsel
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
For defendant Michael Magliano:
Letitia James
New York Attorney General
Michael A. Berg
Assistant Attorney General
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Michael Picard ("Picard") brings a First Amendment challenge to a provision of New York's criminal contempt statute, N.Y. Penal Law § 215.50(7) (the "Act"). The Act prohibits speech concerning the conduct of a trial within two hundred feet of a courthouse. On December 4, 2017, Picard was arrested outside the Bronx Hall of Justice for holding a sign and distributing fliers advocating jury nullification.1 Although the district attorney declined to prosecute, Picard asserts he is too afraid to continue his advocacy outside New York courthouses. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Picard has sued Michael Magliano ("Magliano"), Chief of Public Safety for the New York Unified Court System, and Darcel D. Clark ("Clark"), District Attorney for Bronx County, in their official capacities. The defendants have moved to dismiss Picard's claims on the grounds that he lacks standing to challenge the Act and, with respect to Clark, fails to state a claim. For the reasons that follow, the motions to dismiss are denied.
The Act provides, in pertinent part:
N.Y. Penal Law § 215.50(7). Under New York law, a class A misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of one year of imprisonment. Id. § 70.15(1).
The following facts are taken from the complaint and documents attached to the complaint; they are assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion. Picard believes that jury nullification is an effective means to protest unjust laws. Since early 2016, Picard has distributed flyers with information about jury nullification outside courthouses in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York on approximately a dozen different occasions.
On December 4, 2017, Picard stood on the sidewalk outside the Bronx County Hall of Justice and held up a sign that read "Jury Info" and passed out fliers. One side of the fliers read The other side of the fliers read "'One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws' -- Martin Luther King Jr." Picard did not discuss any particular criminal proceedings with anyone.
Shortly after Picard began handing out fliers, a court officer informed him that it is against the law to distribute fliers about jury nullification within two hundred feet of a courthouse. When Picard refused to move, he was arrested.
Several hours later, an assistant district attorney for Bronx County declined to prosecute Picard, explaining in an affidavit:
The People decline to prosecute the instant matter due to insufficient evidence. On December 4, 2017, at 8:05am, arresting officer observed defendant on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse, holding and displaying a sign with the words printed JURY NULLIFICATION, and displaying pamphlets stating NO VICTIM NO CRIME. When the arresting officer approached Defendant and informed him that he needed to be 200 feet away from the courthouse to protest, the defendant refused to move. Since the officer did not measure the distance between the defendant and the courthouse, the People have insufficient evidence to meet their burden of proof at trial and as such, the charges must be dismissed.
Since his arrest, Picard has not advocated for jury nullification within 200 feet of a courthouse in New York State. He fears that, if he were to do so, he would be arrested and prosecuted for violating the Act. Were it not for the Act, he would continue his advocacy outside of courthouses in New York, including in particular outside the Bronx County Hall of Justice where he was arrested.
Magliano and Clark moved to dismiss the complaint on July 26, 2019. The motion was fully submitted September 13.
The defendants move to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), asserting that Picard lacks standing to challenge the Act on its face or as applied to him. In addition, Clark moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the ground that it fails to plead a claim against her with sufficient specificity. Both motions are denied.
When a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is addressed to the complaint and premised on lack of Article III standing, "[t]he task of the district court is to determine whether the Pleading alleges facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has standing to sue." Carter v. HealthPort Tech., LLC, 822 F.3d 47, 56 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). It is axiomatic that the irreducible minimum of Article III standing contains three elements. Dubuisson v. Stonebridge Life In. Co., 887 F.3d 567, 573 (2d Cir. 2018). The plaintiff must have "(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Melito v. Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc., 923 F.3d 85, 92 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing these elements "for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought." Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008).
"For an alleged injury to support constitutional standing, it must be concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377, 383 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Where a plaintiff asserts injury from an allegedly unconstitutional criminal statute, however, "it is not necessary that the plaintiff first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge the statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights." Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) (citation omitted). Rather, in the context of pre-enforcement challenges to criminal statutes, the Supreme Court has applied a "relaxed" standing inquiry. Nat'l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. Walsh, 714 F.3d 682, 689 (2d Cir. 2013). Under that standard, a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but arguably proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 159, 162 (2014).2
When interpreting a challenged statute, courts should do no more than determine whether the plaintiff's proposed interpretation is "reasonable enough." Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 383 (2d Cir. 2000). "If a plaintiff's interpretation of a statute is reasonable enough and under that interpretation the plaintiff may legitimately fear that it will face enforcement of the statute, then the plaintiff has standing to challenge the statute." Pac. Cap. Bank, N.A. v. Connecticut, 542 F.3d 341, 350 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also Hedges v. Obama, 724 F.3d 170, 197 (2d Cir. 2013).
"The identification of a credible threat sufficient to satisfy the imminence requirement of injury in fact necessarily depends on the particular circumstances at issue." Knife Rights, 802 F.3d at 384. While "past enforcement against the same conduct is good evidence that the threat of enforcement is not chimerical," a credible threat will not be found where a plaintiff's fear of criminal prosecution is "imaginary or wholly speculative." Susan B. Anthony, 573 U.S. at 160, 164 (citation omitted). Because courts are generally willing to "presume that the government will enforce the law," Hedges, 724 F.3d at 197, the standard for a showing a credible threat reflects "a low threshold and is quite forgiving to plaintiffs seeking such preenforcement review." Cayuga Nation v. Tanner, 824 F.3d 321, 331 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
Picard has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Act. Picard has pleaded that he intends to engage in a course of conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects speech concerning the administration of the law so long as that speech does not present a "clear and present danger" to the fair and impartial administration of justice. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 389 (1962). Picard's interpretation of the Act as prohibiting his intended conduct appears reasonable. The Act prohibits displaying signs within two hundred feet of any courthouse containing matter "concerning the conduct of a trial being held in such courthouse." The advocacy of jury nullification arguably...
To continue reading
Request your trial