Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine

• Decision Date: 31 July 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 19-cv-1122 (WMW/LIB)
• Citation: 475 F.Supp.3d 950
• Parties: The SATANIC TEMPLE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BELLE PLAINE, MINNESOTA ; Councilman Cary Coop; Councilwoman Theresa McDaniel; Councilman Ben Stier; Councilman Paul Chard ; and Mayor Christopher Meyer, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

475 F.Supp.3d 950

The SATANIC TEMPLE, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF BELLE PLAINE, MINNESOTA ; Councilman Cary Coop; Councilwoman Theresa McDaniel; Councilman Ben Stier; Councilman Paul Chard ; and Mayor Christopher Meyer, Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-1122 (WMW/LIB)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed July 31, 2020

Jason Scott Juran, Robert R. Hopper, LLC, Peter J. Nickitas, Minneapolis, MN, Matthew A. Kezhaya, Pro Hac Vice, Kezhaya Law PLC, Bentonville, AR, Bruce Fein, Pro Hac Vice, W. Bruce DelValle, Pro Hac Vice, Fein & DelValle PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Monte A. Mills, Samuel J. Clark, Greene Espel PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff The Satanic Temple (TST) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Count II of its complaint, which alleges a violation of its right to free speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Dkt. 22.) Defendants City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota (Belle Plaine), Mayor Christopher Meyer, and Belle Plaine city council members Cary Coop, Theresa McDaniel, Ben Stier, and Paul Chard (Council Members), move for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire complaint. (Dkt. 27.) For the reasons addressed below, the Court denies TST's motion for judgment on the pleadings and grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

BACKGROUND

Two resolutions passed by the Belle Plaine City Council are relevant to the legal analysis in this proceeding, Resolution 17-020 and Resolution 17-090. On February 21, 2017, the Belle Plaine City Council enacted Resolution 17-020, titled "ESTABLISHING A POLICY REGARDING A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM IN VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK." In relevant part, Resolution 17-020 provides as follows:

[T]he Council wishes to allow private parties access to Veterans Memorial Park for the purpose of erecting displays in keeping with the purpose of honoring and memorializing veterans ....

...

1. The City designates a limited public forum in Veterans Memorial Park for the express purpose of allowing individuals or organizations to erect and maintain privately owned displays that honor and memorialize living or deceased veterans, branch of military and Veterans organizations affiliated with Belle Plaine....

...

9. The requesting party and not the City shall own any display erected in the limited public forum. The display must have liability coverage of 1,000,000 ....

...

13. In the event the City desires to close the limited public forum or rescind this policy, the City, through its City Administrator, may terminate all permits by giving ten (10) days’ written notice of termination to [the] Owner, within which period the owner must remove their display from city property.

On July 17, 2017, Resolution 17-020 was rescinded by the enactment of Resolution 17-090, titled "RESCINDING THE POLICY AND ELIMINATING THE LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM IN VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK." In relevant part, Resolution 17-090 provides:

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota:

1. The policy established in Resolution 17-020 is rescinded and the limited public forum established in the Park is hereby eliminated. Private displays or memorials placed in the Park shall be removed within a reasonable period by the owner thereof or, upon notice to such owner, or they will be deemed abandoned and removed by the City.

On February 23, 2017, TST submitted an application to erect a display in Belle Plaine's Veterans Memorial Park pursuant to Resolution 17-020. TST received a permit on March 29, 2017. The Belle Plaine Veterans Club also obtained a permit under Resolution 17-020 to erect a display.¹

On June 29, 2017, TST notified the City Administrator that its memorial monument was complete. TST spent "substantial sums in the design and construction of its display" and acquired liability insurance as required by Resolution 17-020.

Before the passage of Resolution 17-090 on July 17, 2017, Belle Plain Veteran's Club voluntarily removed its display from Veterans Memorial Park. Resolution 17-020 was rescinded by Resolution 17-090 on July 17, 2017. The next day, Belle Plaine notified TST by letter that the Belle Plaine City Council adopted Resolution 17-090 and enclosed a check reimbursing TST for its permit-application fee. As a result of Resolution 17-090, TST never erected its display.

Immediately after the rescission, Belle Plaine issued a press release dated July 18, 2017, which states in relevant part:

As called-for in the resolution, owners of all privately-owned Park displays currently located in the Park's designated space are now being given 10 days’ notice to remove the displays ....

The original intent of providing the public space was to recognize those who have bravely contributed to defending our nation through their military service. In recent weeks and months, though, that intent has been overshadowed by freedom of speech concerns expressed by both religious and non-religious communities.

The debate between those communities has drawn significant regional and national attention to our city, and has promoted divisiveness among our own residents.

While this debate has a place in public dialogue, it has detracted from our city's original intent of designating a space solely for the purpose of honoring and memorializing military veterans, and has also portrayed our city in a negative light.

On April 25, 2019, TST commenced this action against Belle Plaine, Mayor Christopher Meyer, and four Belle Plaine City Council Members in their individual and official capacities. Counts I and IX of the complaint allege violations of TST's right to free exercise of religion under both the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. Counts II and X allege violations of TST's right to free speech under both the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. Count III alleges a violation of TST's rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Count V alleges a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. And Count VII alleges promissory estoppel. TST moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Count II, and Belle Plaine cross moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire complaint.²

ANALYSIS

Judgment on the pleadings is proper when there are no issues of material fact to be resolved and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn. , 304 F.3d 797, 803 (8th Cir. 2002). When evaluating the merits of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the district court applies the same legal standard that applies to a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ; see also Ashley County v. Pfizer, Inc. , 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009). To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. See Clemons v. Crawford , 585 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2009). A district court accepts as true all facts pleaded by the nonmoving party and draws all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in favor of that party. Corwin v. City of Independence, Mo. , 829 F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 2016). Without more, merely reciting the elements of a cause of action is insufficient, and legal conclusions asserted in the complaint are not entitled to the presumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). When deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a district court refrains from considering matters beyond the pleadings, other than certain public records and "materials that do not contradict the complaint, or materials that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings." Saterdalen v. Spencer , 725 F.3d 838, 841 (8th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

I. TST's Section 1983 Claims (Counts I, II, and III) Against the Individual Defendants

Defendants first seek dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants—namely, the Mayor and the individual Council Members—arguing that TST fails to state a claim for personal liability as to the individual defendants. TST does not dispute the dismissal of its claims against those individual defendants who are immune from liability for their legislative acts. But TST asserts that dismissal is unwarranted as to the claims for injunctive relief against these defendants in their official capacities.

It is well established that "[l]ocal legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for their legislative activities." Bogan v. Scott-Harris , 523 U.S. 44, 54, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) ; Hope Baptist Church v. City of Bellefontaine Neighbors , 655 F. Supp. 1216, 1221 (E.D. Mo. 1987) (concluding that the city legislators were entitled to absolute immunity and dismissing the defendant mayor when the complaint failed to allege performance of any action by the mayor regarding plaintiff's rezoning application). When determining whether an act is legislative, courts consider the nature of the act, not the motive or intent of the official performing the act. Bogan , 523 U.S. at 54, 118 S.Ct. 966 ; Klingner v. City of Braham , 130 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1072 (D. Minn. 2001) (explaining that a city council's act of passing an ordinance, adopting a resolution, and passing a second ordinance, and the mayor's act of signing the ordinance into law, were legislative). Voting on a council resolution is a "quintessentially legislative" act that rests within the bounds of legitimate legislative activity. Bogan , 523 U.S. at 55, 118 S.Ct. 966.

TST identifies no factual or legal grounds that support holding the Council Members and the...