WILLIS v. TOWN OF MARSHALL, No. 1:02cv217-C (W.D.N.C. 6/20/2003), 1:02cv217-C.
| Decision Date | 20 June 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:02cv217-C.,1:02cv217-C. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | REBECCA WILLIS, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF MARSHALL, NORTH CAROLINA, a corporation of the State of North Carolina, Defendant. |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Having considered the pleadings, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law and having heard the arguments of counsel, the undersigned recommends that, with the exception of one claim, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be denied and that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be granted.
Plaintiff Rebecca Willis is a long — time resident of Madison County, North Carolina and lives just outside the boundaries of Defendant Town of Marshall, a small community in the mountains of Western North Carolina. (Affidavit of Rebecca Willis ¶ 1). Located in the heart of Marshall is the old Southern Railway Depot, which the Town of Marshall leases and is now known as the Marshall Depot. (Am. Compl. ¶ 7). The Town uses the Depot as a museum and community center. (Id. ¶ 9). Some time after the Town began leasing the Depot, its Board of Aldermen appointed a committee to coordinate events at the Depot, known as the Marshall Depot Committee ("Committee"). (Id. ¶ 10; Boone Aff. ¶ 3; Ward Aff. ¶ 3). This Committee generates the funds necessary to produce the events held at the Depot and coordinates the events. (Boone Aff. ¶ 3; Ward Aff. ¶ 3). Among the events coordinated by the Committee are Friday evening concerts, weekly events including country or blue grass music, dancing, raffles, and general fellowship. (Am. Compl. ¶ 11). Musicians sign up to perform, and located next to the performance stage in the front of chairs set up for viewing the performances is a dance floor for those wishing to dance. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13). These events are open to the public and are well attended by a broad range of community members, including small children and grandchildren. (Id. ¶ 11, 13).
On the back wall inside the Depot are nine "Rules of Behavior," which read:
(1) No Drinking (Alcoholic Beverages); (2) No Smoking; (3) Shoes and Shirts Required; (4) No Sitting on Rails; (5) No Blocking Doors; (6) No Cases or Instruments Left on Deck; (7) No Jamming Inside Depot or on Deck; (8) No Unsupervised Children Allowed to Run Loose Around Building; and (9) No Soliciting.
(Am. Compl. ¶ 14). There are no other posted rules or regulations regarding dress or appropriate behavior at the Depot. (Id. ¶ 15).
According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff regularly attended the Friday evening concerts and particularly enjoyed dancing "exuberantly and flamboyantly." (Am. Compl. ¶ 17). Plaintiff's dancing, however, upset certain members of the community, whose affidavits the Town has submitted in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. According to this evidence, Plaintiff danced in a sexually provocative manner, wearing very short skirts or what appeared to be a long shirt, gyrating, and simulating sexual intercourse with her partner while hunched on the floor. (See, e.g., Boone Aff. ¶ 7; Allen Aff. ¶ 4; Ward Aff. ¶ 6). Some of the Town's witnesses stated in their affidavits that Plaintiff's undergarments, buttocks, or "privates" were visible while she was dancing. (Dodd Aff. ¶ 3; Dora Reeves Aff. ¶ 3; Bill Reeves Aff. ¶ 3; Payne Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Seivers Aff. ¶ 9). Kathleen Dodd stated in her affidavit that on one occasion, when her grandchildren were standing next to her, Plaintiff climbed the steps at the Depot and stated that she was "going to show [her] boobs and shake [her] boobs" that night, which she later did. (Dodd. Aff. ¶ 4). A number of community members complained to members of the Depot Committee about Plaintiff's dancing, requesting that they do something to "tone it down," and some people said that they would not continue to come to the Depot because of concern about their children or spouses seeing such activity. (Allen Aff. ¶ 5; Ward Aff. ¶ 11; Dodson Aff. ¶ 6; Morton Aff. ¶ 7; Seivers Aff. ¶ 10). One of the Town's witnesses, Beverly Seivers, stated in her affidavit that although she had enjoyed attending the Friday evening events at the Depot regularly, she stopped going to them because she "simply did not feel comfortable observing . . . [Plaintiff's] vulgar and sexually provocative behavior." (Seivers Aff. ¶ 11).
In response to these complaints, the Committee requested that one of its members, Reatha Ward, warn Plaintiff that her behavior was inappropriate and to curtail her provocative dancing. (Boone Aff. ¶ 7; Nix Aff. ¶ 4; Ward Aff. ¶ 7; Wild Aff. ¶ 4). According to the Town's witnesses, Plaintiff's dancing grew more provocative following this warning. (Ward Aff. ¶ 8). The Committee then directed Ms. Ward to inform Plaintiff that she was no longer welcome at the Depot. (Boone Aff. ¶ 11; Nix Aff. ¶ 6; Ward Aff. ¶ 8). The Committee, acting through Ms. Ward, then requested that the Mayor of the Town, Mr. John Dodson, send a letter to Plaintiff, requesting her not to attend Depot events. (Boone Aff. ¶ 11; Ward Aff. ¶ 9; Wild Aff. ¶ 6; Dodson Aff. ¶ 8). On or about December 12, 2000, Mayor Dodson sent Plaintiff a letter, the body of which stated in its entirety:
Due to the inappropriate behavior exhibited by you and having received previous warnings from the Marshall Depot Committee it is the consensus of the Committee that you are banned from the Marshall Depot. This action is effective as of today's date.
(Exh. C attached to Willis Aff).
On September 20, 2002, Plaintiff filed this action against the Town. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on November 22, 2002, in which she alleges that the Town violated her right to access a public forum, her right to freedom of speech, her right to equal protection, and her right to procedural due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff also alleges that the authority on which the Town relied in banning her from the Depot is unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness, also in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Town subsequently filed a motion to dismiss this action, to which Plaintiff filed a response. Plaintiff then filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the Court enjoin the Town from committing further acts of alleged misconduct as described in the Amended Complaint.
In support of her motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff filed several affidavits, including the affidavits of Hugh and Pat Mathus. Mr. and Ms. Mathus stated in their affidavits that they attend the Friday evening events at the Depot regularly and that they have often seen Plaintiff dance. (Hugh Mathus Aff. ¶¶ 2, 4; Pat Mathus Aff. ¶¶ 2, 4). According to these witnesses, Plaintiff's dancing was no different in character than that of other dancers at the Depot, nor was Plaintiff's dress any more provocative or revealing than that of other women. (Hugh Mathus ¶¶ 5, 6; Pat Mathus ¶¶ 5, 6). Plaintiff also presented the affidavit of Katherine Maheu, a professional dance educator and former collegiate dance instructor, who stated in her affidavit that based on a videotape of Plaintiff's dancing aired on the Inside Edition television show on April 4, 2001, it was her opinion that Plaintiff's dancing was "well within the confines of what would be deemed tasteful and appropriate for dancing in a club." (Maheu Aff. ¶¶ 4, 5). Ms. Maheu stated further that she regularly viewed dancing around the State of North Carolina and that while she had observed members of the public engage in sexually suggestive dancing, Plaintiff's dancing could not reasonably be construed as vulgar, lewd, or obscene, nor was it even in the same category as the sexually suggestive dancing Ms. Maheu had witnessed. (Id. ¶ 6). Finally, in support of her motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff submitted a copy of the videotape of the Inside Edition program on which Plaintiffs dancing had been shown and discussed. In the videotape, Madison County Sheriffs Deputy Scott Graddy stated, apparently in response to a question concerning the consequences of Plaintiff's returning to the Depot: "Right now, she's been banned by the Town attorney and committee, and at this point, she would be charged with trespassing." (Exh. A attached to Second Willis Aff).
The Town moves to dismiss each of Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232 (1984); see also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102 (1957). In evaluating a motion to dismiss, "a court must accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true." GE Investment Private Placement Partners II v. Parker, 247 F.3d 543, 548 (4th Cir. 2001). Notwithstanding this exacting standard, dismissals should be granted when warranted. As recognized by the Supreme Court in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989), the Rule 12(b)(6) procedure for early dismissal "streamlines litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and fact finding." Id., 490 U.S. at 326-27, 109 S.Ct. at 1832. Accordingly, "[n]othing in Rule 12(b)(6) confines its sweep to claims of law which are obviously insupportable." Id., 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1832.
Because, when evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), "a court must accept the factual allegations of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial