Wright v. Anthony, 83-2108
| Decision Date | 07 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2108,83-2108 |
| Citation | 733 F.2d 575 |
| Parties | Albert R. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. United States Representative Beryl ANTHONY; U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Subcommittee on Health and the Environment; U.S. Social Security Administration; U.S. Health Care Financing Administration; State of Arkansas; State Department of Human Services, Social Services Division, Office of Long-Term Care; State Office on Aging; State's Attorney General, Medicaid Fraud Division; Arkansas Chapter, National Association of Social Workers, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Steven R. Ross, Gen. Counsel to the Clerk, Michael L. Murray, Asst. Counsel to the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., for Congressional appellees.
John Wesley Hall, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., E. Jeffery Story, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellees State of Ark., State Dept. of Human Services, Social Services Div., Office of Long-Term Care, State Office on Aging, State's Atty. Gen. and Medicaid Fraud Div.
Laser, Sharp & Huckabay, P.A., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee Arkansas Chapter, Nat. Ass'n of Social Workers.
Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
Albert R. Wright appeals from the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Wright sued Congressman Anthony, among others, 1 alleging that Congressman Anthony violated Wright's first amendment rights. We affirm the judgment of the district court. 2
This dispute arose when Congressman Anthony held a public hearing on the issue of Social Security reform at the Garland County Courthouse in Arkansas. Prospective speakers at the hearing were given notice that they were informally limited to five minutes in their presentations. Wright appeared at the hearing and began to read his prepared text. He got as far as page four of seven pages when Congressman Anthony interrupted and ended his testimony. Wright alleges that this action violated his first amendment right to freedom of speech and demands declaratory relief and an apology from Congressman Anthony.
Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the exercise of first amendment rights are not repugnant to the Constitution. See, e.g., Heffron v. Int'l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 647, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 2563, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981). Wright was not prevented from introducing all of his prepared text into the written record; he was merely prevented from reading all of it aloud. Even construing the allegations of the complaint most favorably to Wright, there is no indication that Congressman Anthony's action was precipitated by the content of Wright's message. Moreover, the restriction may be said to have served a significant governmental interest in conserving time and in ensuring that others had an opportunity to speak. Thus, it does not appear that the limitation placed on Wright's speech was unreasonable. 3
The only other issue remaining on appeal is the propriety of the district court's dismissal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., Civ. A. No. 90-F-864.
...L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); see Cayman Exploration, 873 F.2d at 1362-63. Any further amendments would serve no useful purpose. Wright v. Anthony, 733 F.2d 575, 577 (8th Cir.1984); Wrenn v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 104 F.R.D. 553, 557 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Considering that plaintiff seeks to o......
-
Collinson v. Gott
...ad hoc rulings to keep discussion within reasonable time and manner bounds once a scheduled meeting was underway, see Wright v. Anthony, 733 F.2d 575 (8th Cir.1984) (five minutes per speaker limit reasonable). But none, it is fair to say, suggested that there were no constitutional limits--......
-
DeWit v. Firstar Corp.
...complaint is to be liberally granted, different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal. See, e.g., Wright v. Anthony, 733 F.2d 575, 577 (8th Cir.1984); Hinton v. CPC International, Inc., 520 F.2d 1312, 1314 (8th Cir.1975). After a complaint is dismissed, the right to amend un......
-
Piscottano v. Town of Somers
...a significant governmental interest in controlling the agenda and preventing the disruption of public meetings); Wright v. Anthony, 733 F.2d 575, 577 (8th Cir.1984) (finding that public hearing procedure limiting speech time to five minutes per speaker was a valid time, place, and manner re......