Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 1 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER ____________

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED
ADAM BISHOP, an individual,
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
- against -
CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION
42 U.S.C. § 1983
ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY UNIFIED GOVERNMENT;
DOES 1-2,
DECLARATORY RELIEF,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
Defendants.
DAMAGES

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ADAM BISHOP, an individual (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by

and through his counsel, and as this cause of action against the Defendants herein, avers as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages

to redress deprivations by Defendants, ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY UNIFIED

GOVERNMENT (the “County”), and DOES 1-2 (collectively “Defendants”).

2. This action challenges Section 6-5-23 of the Athens-Clarke County, Georgia

Code of Ordinances (the “Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance”) as written (facial

challenge).

3. This action challenges the interpretation and enforcement (as-applied challenge)

of Chapter 6.5 of the Athens-Clarke County, Georgia Code of Ordinances (the “Special Events

Ordinance”).
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 2 of 36

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, ADAM BISHOP, is an adult citizen and resident of Georgia and brings

this action in his personal capacity.

5. Defendant, ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY UNIFIED GOVERNMENT, is a body

politic and corporate located within the State of Georgia and has the ability to sue and be sued.

The County has the right, power, privilege, and authority to enforce the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance within the County. The County has

the right, power, privilege, and authority to train (or fail to properly train) its officers, agents, and

employees to interpret, enforce, and apply the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance, the

Special Events Ordinance, and other regulations, and to do and perform all of the acts pertaining

to its local affairs. At all material times, the County acted toward Plaintiff under color of the

statutes, ordinances, customs, and usage of the County. The County knew, or should have

known, of the unlawful enforcement of the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the

Special Events Ordinance alleged herein, and had the power and authority to remedy the

unlawful interpretation, enforcement, and application, but failed to do so.

6. Defendants, DOES 1-2 (hereinafter “DOES” or “Defendant” or “Defendants”),

were at all relevant times employed as agents and/or employees of the County’s Police

Department. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of Defendants DOES 1 and 2 and therefore

sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint

to allege their true names and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously-named Defendants are

responsible for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s damages, as herein alleged,

were caused by their conduct. DOES 1-2 enforced the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance

2
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 3 of 36

and the Special Events Ordinance under color of state law and/or were acting as agents and/or

employees of the County.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. Plaintiff brings this action seeking injunctive relief and nominal and/or

compensatory and/or special and/or exemplary damages to redress deprivations by Defendants,

acting under color of state law, of certain rights secured to Plaintiff and others as alleged herein

under the United States Constitution as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3) and 1343(a)(4),

which provide for original jurisdiction in this Court of all suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983.

9. Jurisdiction is also conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the cause

of action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

10. This Court is authorized to grant Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, implemented through Rule 57 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and to issue the Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive relief requested by

Plaintiff under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

11. This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiff’s prayer for relief and to award

Plaintiff’s costs in this action for violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, including a

reasonable attorney’s fee and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Rule 54, and

28 U.S.C. § 1920.

3
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 4 of 36

12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants

reside and/or do business in the Middle District of Georgia and may be found and served in the

Middle District of Georgia.

13. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Georgia as all of the events giving rise

to the claims herein occurred in this District.

FACTS

14. Plaintiff is an individual acting to spread awareness of his views regarding

religious, political, and social topics.

15. Among Plaintiff’s purposes is the belief in a mandate to exercise his rights to the

freedom of speech and to further his religious, political, and social beliefs.

16. Plaintiff brings this action to vindicate and protect his rights to the freedom of

speech and the free exercise of religion in the County by ensuring that Defendants are restrained

from acting prospectively in violation of those rights.

17. The public parks, public streets, public sidewalks, and public rights-of-way within

the jurisdiction of the County (“Public Spaces”) are traditional public fora.

18. Plaintiff, citizens, and members of the public utilize the Public Spaces for various

activities, including communication and the exchange of ideas.

The County Adopts the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance

19. The County adopted the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance.

20. The Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance states:

Any person, group or organization engaged in any picketing, demonstrations,

assembly, gathering, procession or other activity protected by the U.S.
Constitution shall be prohibited from blocking the ingress and egress of any
public or private place. Any person, group or organization engaged in such
activities is required to make application as set forth in section 6-5-3(a). However,

4
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 5 of 36

any such person, group or organization shall be exempt from the permit
requirement in section 6-5-2 and the fees set forth in section 6-5-3(c) and section
6-5-9.

The County Adopts the Special Events Ordinance

21. The County adopted the Special Events Ordinance.

22. The Special Events Ordinance provides, at Section 6-5-1:

Special event: The term ‘special event’ or ‘event’ shall mean any organized
activity having as its primary purpose entertainment, recreation and/or education
which provides a substantial public and community benefit, such as a festival,
celebration, foot or vehicle race, parade, march, rally or assembly, which takes
place in whole or in part on a public street, sidewalk or right-of-way, or any
organized activity that occurs on private property and impacts government
services on public rights-of-way.

23. The Code provides, at Section 6-5-3(a):

A producer of a special event shall make application for a permit for such event at
the office of the manager on a form prescribed by the manager. Application forms
may be obtained from the office of the manager, the office of the clerk of
commission, and the police department.

Plaintiff’s Planned Activities

24. Plaintiff has shared his religious, political, and social speech with people in the

County.

25. Plaintiff’s message is one of hope and salvation that Christianity offers.

26. Plaintiff has not harassed, encouraged violence, or expressed himself in any way

other than in a peaceful manner.

27. Plaintiff desires to continue his peaceful activities without being unlawfully

arrested, incarcerated, or cited.

28. Plaintiff shares his faith in various ways.

29. Plaintiff distributes free literature and carries portable signs.

5
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 6 of 36

30. Plaintiff records public events for commentary and distribution.

31. Plaintiff engages others in respectful, one-on-one discussions about Jesus Christ

and the Christian faith.

32. Plaintiff has a religious mandate to go to Public Spaces in the County to

peacefully share his message.

33. On upcoming days – including but not limited to days in November 2019 through

December 2023 – Plaintiff has concrete plans to engage in his constitutionally-protected

activities by peacefully expressing religious, political, and social speech on the public sidewalks,

at public parks, and in other Public Spaces in the County. Specific events Plaintiff would like to

attend to engage in his constitutionally-protected activities include, but are not limited to:

Downtown Parade of Lights 12/5/19

Athens Hip Hop Awards 3/29/20
International Street Festival 4/11/20
Twilight Criterium 4/24/20 - 4/25/20
Human Rights Festival 5/2/20 - 5/3/20
Hot Corner Festival 6/12/20 - 6/13/20
Athfest 6/26/20 - 6/28/20
Athens Pride Fest 9/27/20

34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ prior enforcement of the

Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance, Plaintiff is forfeiting

his constitutionally-protected activities due to fear of arrest, incarceration, and/or fines.

Defendants Apply the Policy and the Code Against Plaintiff

35. On September 29, 2019, the Athens Pride Festival was conducted on public

streets and sidewalks in the County.

6
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 7 of 36

36. The organizers of the Athens Pride Festival had obtained a permit pursuant to the

Policy and the Code to conduct the Athens Pride Festival on September 29, 2019 on public

streets and sidewalks.

37. On September 29, 2019, the Athens Pride Festival did not require the general

public to purchase tickets to enter the festival area.

38. On September 29, 2019, the general public was not restricted or limited from

using the County’s sidewalks and streets in the festival area, during the Athens Pride Festival.

39. On September 29, 2019, the County interpreted and enforced the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance by granting the Athens Pride

Festival organizers proprietary control over speech on some parts of the County’s sidewalks and

streets in the festival area, during the Athens Pride Festival.

40. On September 29, 2019, the County allowed the general public, the Athens Pride

Festival organizers, and vendors to express messages on the County’s sidewalks and streets in

the festival area, in the same area Plaintiff was banned from expressing his message, during the

Athens Pride Festival.

41. On September 29, 2019, Plaintiff was peacefully sharing his religious, political,

and social message on the County’s sidewalks and streets in the festival area during the Athens

Pride Festival.

42. On September 29, 2019, the County’s DOE Officer told Plaintiff that “this is a

paid-for private venue; they have the right to allow people in and out.”

43. On September 29, 2019, the County’s DOE Officer told Plaintiff that outside the

gate was open to the public.

7
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 8 of 36

44. On September 29, 2019, the County’s DOE Officer told Plaintiff: “Yeah, you can

go right out there and preach, but when it’s a private venue if they ask for us to ask you to leave,

we can, they have the freedom. They paid for all of this and they have the freedom to ask us to

do that.”

45. On September 29, 2019, the County’s DOE Officer told Plaintiff “it is a private

venue now. They’ve asked you to go.”

46. On September 29, 2019, the County’s DOE Officer told Plaintiff “you can report

and say this is an infringement on your rights all you want, I don’t care.”

47. On September 29, 2019, the County’s DOE Officer told Plaintiff “I am now

telling you to go.”

48. On September 29, 2019, the County’s DOE Officer told Plaintiff “if you don’t

leave you will be arrested.”

49. On September 29, 2019, the County’s DOE Officer told Plaintiff if he did not

leave he would be arrested for trespass.

50. On September 29, 2019, the County’s DOE Officer told Plaintiff that he could

preach outside the barricade “as long as I don’t hear you.”

The County’s Policy, Practice, and Custom of Failing to Train Related to Constitutional
Freedoms and Interpreting, Enforcing, and Applying the Picketing and Demonstrations
Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance

51. The County has a policy, practice, and custom of training the County’s officers,

agents, and employees in the Athens-Clarke County Police Department that has resulted in

Plaintiff having to forfeit constitutional freedoms and being threatened with arrest pursuant to the

Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance.

8
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 9 of 36

52. The County’s policy, practice, and custom of training the County’s officers,

agents, and employees in the Athens-Clarke County Police Department failed to adequately

inform of constitutional standards and did not properly regulate the discretion used by the

County’s officers, agents, and employees in the Athens-Clarke County Police Department when

interpreting, enforcing, and applying the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the

Special Events Ordinance, and as a direct consequence, resulted in Plaintiff having to forfeit

constitutional freedoms and being threatened with arrest pursuant to the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance.

53. The County’s failure to adequately inform of constitutional standards and

properly regulate the discretion used by the County’s officers, agents, and employees in the

Athens-Clarke County Police Department when interpreting, enforcing, and applying the

Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance, and otherwise

failing to protect Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, existed by virtue of the County’s failure to train,

supervise, and discipline the County’s officers, agents, and employees in the Athens-Clarke

County Police Department.

54. Policymakers in the County and the Athens-Clarke County Police Department

were on actual or constructive notice of, but deliberately indifferent to, the County’s

unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs adopted and approved by the County to train its

officers, agents, and employees for interpreting, enforcing, and applying the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance and otherwise failing to protect

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

55. The County’s unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs adopted and

approved by the County to train its officers, agents, and employees for interpreting, enforcing,

9
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 10 of 36

and applying the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance and

otherwise failing to protect Plaintiff’s constitutional rights would not have persisted if the

County and the County’s officers, agents, and employees in the Athens-Clarke County Police

Department had not been so indifferent to protecting constitutional freedoms.

56. As a direct and proximate consequence of the County’s unconstitutional policies,

practices, and customs adopted and approved by the County to train its officers, agents, and

employees for interpreting, enforcing, and applying the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance

and the Special Events Ordinance and otherwise failing to protect Plaintiff’s constitutional rights,

Plaintiff was forced to cease the exercise of his constitutional rights on a public sidewalk under

threat of arrest.

57. The Athens-Clarke County Police Department’s failure to protect Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights, and the unconstitutional threat of arrest of Plaintiff pursuant to the Picketing

and Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance, were known, or should have

been known, to members of the Athens-Clarke County Police Department, including those in the

County’s hierarchy supervising and training the County’s officers, agents, and employees in the

Athens-Clarke County Police Department who are responsible for training, supervising,

monitoring, and disciplining the County’s officers, agents, and employees in the Athens-Clarke

County Police Department.

58. The County’s failure to adequately inform of constitutional standards and

properly regulate the discretion used by the County’s officers, agents, and employees in the

Athens-Clarke County Police Department when interpreting, enforcing, and applying the

Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance, and otherwise

failing to protect Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, was at a minimum recklessly indifferent to the

10
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 11 of 36

pattern of misconduct by the County’s officers, agents, and employees in the Athens-Clarke

County Police Department directly resulting in the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

59. The County has a policy, practice, and custom of failing to properly train the

County’s officers, agents, and employees in the Athens-Clarke County Police Department that

has resulted in repeated occasions where others have engaged in behavior that should require

enforcement of the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance,

but due to the County’s failures, Plaintiff has forfeited constitutional freedoms, and was forced to

cease exercising his constitutional rights under threat of arrest pursuant to the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

60. As a direct and proximate result of the enforcement of the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance on September 29, 2019, Plaintiff

was unconstitutionally denied the right to exercise his freedom of speech.

61. As a direct and proximate result of the enforcement of the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance on September 29, 2019, Plaintiff

was unconstitutionally denied the right to the free exercise of his religion.

62. As a direct and proximate result of the enforcement of the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance on September 29, 2019, Plaintiff

was threatened with arrest.

63. The enforcement of the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special

Events Ordinance and the County’s officers’, agents’, and employees’ actions under color of

state law on September 29, 2019, have deprived, and continue to deprive, Plaintiff of his

constitutional rights.

11
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 12 of 36

64. As a direct and proximate result of the enforcement of the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance on September 29, 2019, and the

County’s officers’, agents’, and employees’ actions under color of state law, Plaintiff fears future

arrest and incarceration when exercising his constitutional rights.

65. As a direct and proximate result of the enforcement of the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events Ordinance on September 29, 2019, and the

County’s officers’, agents’, and employees’ actions under color of state law, Plaintiff is uncertain

and unsure of his ability to exercise his constitutional rights.

66. Plaintiff has been damaged by the deprivation of his rights guaranteed by the

United States Constitution.

67. As interpreted and enforced by Defendants, the Policy and the Code prohibit

Plaintiff’s manner of expressing his constitutional rights.

68. Plaintiff is uncertain whether he will be arrested and incarcerated in the future

while attempting to exercise his constitutional rights within the County.

69. The threat of future arrests and incarceration is both great and immediate.

70. The future impingement of Plaintiff’s rights is an absolute certainty unless and

until this Court grants the injunctive relief requested herein.

71. Defendants have discouraged the exercise of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to the

point that Plaintiff fears arrest and incarceration while exercising his constitutional and civil

rights.

72. Plaintiff wishes to continue exercising his constitutional rights, and has specific

and concrete intentions to continue engaging in the exercise of his constitutional rights, including

activities prohibited by the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the Special Events

12
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 13 of 36

Ordinance, as interpreted and enforced by Defendants, but he is fearful of being arrested and

incarcerated for exercising his constitutional and civil rights.

73. The violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights alleged herein have caused, and

will continue to cause, Plaintiff to suffer extreme hardship and actual and impending irreparable

injury and damage.

74. Plaintiff currently suffers from the denial of rights guaranteed by the United

States Constitution because of Defendants’ actions taken under color of law.

75. There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits in this

case because Defendants’ enforcement of the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the

Special Events Ordinance and Defendants’ actions under color of state law constitute an

abridgement of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

76. The harm to Plaintiff outweighs any subjective harm to Defendants.

77. The public interest is benefited when constitutional and civil rights are protected

by the Courts.

78. Defendants acted without reasonable cause and without due care in causing the

deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights to the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion

protected under the United States Constitution.

79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions and omissions under color

of state law, Plaintiff suffered the loss of his freedom of speech and free exercise of religion

protected under the United States Constitution.

80. Defendants’ actions and omissions were performed with malice, and/or oppression,

and/or callous and/or deliberate indifference, and/or a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights to

13
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 14 of 36

the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion protected under the United States

Constitution.

81. Defendants’ enforcement of the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the

Special Events Ordinance, and the County’s customs and practices, enforced under color of state

law, are the moving force behind the violation of Plaintiff’s rights to the freedom of speech and

the free exercise of religion protected under the United States Constitution.

82. Defendants’ enforcement of the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance and the

Special Events Ordinance, and the County’s customs and practices, enforced under color of state

law, operate to unconstitutionally limit, ban, and censor Plaintiff’s rights to the freedom of

speech and the free exercise of religion protected under the United States Constitution.

83. Defendant County had a duty at all times mentioned herein to implement and

enforce policies and procedures to adequately supervise and adequately train its officials, agents,

and employees so as to prevent the constitutional violations alleged herein.

84. Defendant County failed to implement and enforce policies and procedures to

adequately supervise and adequately train its officials, agents, and employees so as to prevent the

constitutional violations alleged herein.

85. Defendant County’s actions and omissions regarding the failure to adequately train

its officials, agents, and employees so as to prevent the constitutional violations alleged herein

exhibit deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s rights to the freedom of speech and the free

exercise of religion protected under the United States Constitution.

86. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from

Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Rule 54, and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

87. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing this action.

14
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 15 of 36

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

SECTION 1983 – UNCONSTITUTIONAL PICKETING AND DEMONSTRATIONS

ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY

THE PICKETING AND DEMONSTRATIONS ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN

VIOLATES THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

88. The averments of paragraphs 1-87 are repeated and alleged in full force and effect

as if repeated in their entirety herein.

89. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the States

through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unconstitutionally abridging the freedom of

speech.

90. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance requires anyone

engaging in any “activity protected by the U.S. Constitution” in the County to apply for a permit

to do so.

91. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance imposes a prior restraint

on the exercise of any “activity protected by the U.S. Constitution.”

92. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance is vague.

93. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance is overbroad.

94. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance creates unconstitutional

unbridled discretion.

95. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance unconstitutionally

compels Plaintiff to forfeit constitutional freedoms.

96. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance places unconstitutional

conditions and/or restrictions on the exercise of constitutional freedoms.

15
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 16 of 36

97. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance provides no guidelines

for the consideration of applications for a permit.

98. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance unconstitutionally limits

Plaintiff’s freedom of speech by forcing Plaintiff to move out of a traditional public forum at any

time he had not previously obtained a permit from the County.

99. As applied, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance unconstitutionally

imposes a burden on Plaintiff’s and other individuals’ constitutional rights because it:

a. allows for the exercise of unbridled discretion; and,

b. lacks narrow tailoring, fails to serve any legitimate government purpose, and fails

to leave open alternative avenues for expression; and,

c. bars the free speech of Plaintiff and possibly other third-party citizens in a

traditional public forum.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the relief requested

hereinafter in the Prayer for Relief, and any further relief this Court deems is just under the

circumstances.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

SECTION 1983 – UNCONSTITUTIONAL PICKETING AND DEMONSTRATIONS

ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY

THE PICKETING AND DEMONSTRATIONS ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN

VIOLATES THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

100. The averments of paragraphs 1-87 are repeated and alleged in full force and effect

as if repeated in their entirety herein.

16
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 17 of 36

101. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the States

through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unconstitutionally abridging the Free Exercise of

Religion.

102. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance requires anyone

engaging in any “activity protected by the U.S. Constitution” in the County to apply for a permit

to do so.

103. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance imposes a prior restraint

on the exercise of any “activity protected by the U.S. Constitution.”

104. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance is vague.

105. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance is overbroad.

106. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance creates unconstitutional

unbridled discretion.

107. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance unconstitutionally

compels Plaintiff to forfeit constitutional freedoms.

108. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance places unconstitutional

conditions and/or restrictions on the exercise of constitutional freedoms.

109. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance provides no guidelines

for the consideration of applications for a permit.

110. As written, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance unconstitutionally

limits Plaintiff’s free exercise of religion by forcing Plaintiff to move out of a traditional public

forum at any time he had not previously obtained a permit from the County.

111. As applied, the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance unconstitutionally

imposes a burden on Plaintiff’s and other individuals’ constitutional rights because it:

17
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 18 of 36

a. allows for the exercise of unbridled discretion; and,

b. lacks narrow tailoring, fails to serve any legitimate government purpose, and fails

to leave open alternative avenues for expression; and,

112. bars the free exercise of religion of Plaintiff and possibly other third-party citizens

in a traditional public forum.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

SECTION 1983 – UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPECIAL EVENTS ORDINANCE AS

APPLIED AGAINST DOES 1 AND 2

THE SPECIAL EVENTS ORDINANCE AND DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS

VIOLATE THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

113. The averments of paragraphs 1-87 are repeated and alleged in full force and effect

as if repeated in their entirety herein.

114. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the States

through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unconstitutionally abridging the freedom of

speech.

115. The Special Events Ordinance, as applied by Does 1 and 2, and Does 1 and 2’s

actions, policies, and practices impede Plaintiff’s right to Freedom of Speech because of

unlawful enforcement and by granting unfettered discretion to Does 1 and 2 and their officials,

agents, and employees to deny Plaintiff’s right to Freedom of Speech and serves no rational,

substantial, or compelling government interest in the least restrictive means possible.

116. The Special Events Ordinance, as applied by Does 1 and 2, and Does 1 and 2’s

actions, policies, and practices impede Plaintiff’s right to Freedom of Speech because of content-

based restrictions devoid of a compelling government interest.

18
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 19 of 36

117. As interpreted and enforced by Does 1 and 2, the Special Events Ordinance

prohibits Plaintiff’s manner of Freedom of Speech.

118. Does 1 and 2’s actions were performed under color of state law in that they

claimed to be performing an official duty, but their acts were outside the limits of lawful

authority and abusive in manner, and they further acted in a way that misused their power and

were able to do so only because of their position as County officials.

119. Does 1 and 2’s actions were done with malice or reckless indifference to

Plaintiff’s right to Freedom of Speech.

120. Plaintiff sought, and continues to seek, to discuss issues, to distribute literature, to

display signs, and to engage in speech on political, social, and religious topics.

121. The Special Events Ordinance, as applied by Does 1 and 2, and Does 1 and 2’s

actions, policies, and practices, require Plaintiff to censor his speech.

122. Plaintiff was deprived of his right under the First Amendment to engage in

Freedom of Speech activities prohibited by the Special Events Ordinance, as interpreted and

enforced by Does 1 and 2.

123. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, deprived of his right under the First

Amendment to engage in Freedom of Speech.

124. Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages as a result of Does 1 and 2’s

deprivation of his rights, including but not limited to mental and emotional distress, impairment

of reputation, personal humiliation, and other tangible and intangible harms that would not exist

but for Does 1 and 2’s actions, and these harms are reasonably certain to be experienced into the

future.

19
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 20 of 36

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the relief requested

hereinafter in the Prayer for Relief, and any further relief this Court deems is just under the

circumstances.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

SECTION 1983 – UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPECIAL EVENTS ORDINANCE AS

APPLIED AGAINST DOES 1 AND 2

THE SPECIAL EVENTS ORDINANCE AND DOES 1 AND 2’S ACTIONS

VIOLATE THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

125. The averments of paragraphs 1-87 are repeated and alleged in full force and effect

as if repeated in their entirety herein.

126. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the States

through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unconstitutionally abridging the Free Exercise of

Religion.

127. Plaintiff has a personal belief in the Biblical mandate to spread the Gospel of

Jesus Christ, and Plaintiff engages in activities for the purpose of spreading the Gospel of Jesus

Christ that are prohibited by the Special Events Ordinance, as interpreted and enforced by Does 1

and 2.

128. The Bible instructs believers to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with others, and

Plaintiff relies on the Bible to guide his words and actions.

129. Does 1 and 2’s actions, policies, and practices impede Plaintiff’s right to Free

Exercise of Religion because of unlawful enforcement and by exercising unfettered discretion to

deny Plaintiff’s right to Free Exercise of Religion and satisfies no rational, substantial, or

compelling government interest in the least restrictive means possible.

20
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 21 of 36

130. The Special Events Ordinance, as applied by Does 1 and 2, and Does 1 and 2’s

actions, policies, and practices impede Plaintiff’s right to Free Exercise of Religion because of

content-based restrictions devoid of a compelling government interest.

131. As interpreted and enforced by Does 1 and 2, the Special Events Ordinance

prohibits Plaintiff’s manner of Free Exercise of Religion.

132. Does 1 and 2’s actions were performed under color of state law in that they

claimed to be performing an official duty, but their acts were outside the limits of lawful

authority and abusive in manner, and they further acted in a way that misused their power and

were able to do so only because of their positions as County officials.

133. Does 1 and 2’s actions were done with malice or reckless indifference to

Plaintiff’s right to Free Exercise of Religion.

134. Plaintiff sought, and continues to seek, to discuss issues from a religious

perspective, to distribute religious literature, to display signs, and to engage in religious speech

through sharing his faith.

135. The Special Events Ordinance, as applied by Does 1 and 2, and Does 1 and 2’s

actions, policies, and practices, require Plaintiff to censor his religious speech and imposes a

substantial burden on Plaintiff that is not imposed on other individuals.

136. By forcing Plaintiff to choose between abandoning his religious beliefs in order to

gain access to speech in the County’s Public Spaces, and, alternatively, abiding by his religious

beliefs only to be arrested, cited, or fined, Does 1 and 2 have imposed a substantial burden on

Plaintiff’s sincerely-held religious beliefs and his religious exercise.

21
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 22 of 36

137. Plaintiff was deprived of his right under the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution to engage in Free Exercise of Religion activities prohibited by the Special Events

Ordinance, as interpreted and enforced by Does 1 and 2.

138. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, deprived of his right under the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution to engage in Free Exercise of Religion activities.

139. Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages as a result of Does 1 and 2’s

deprivation of his rights, including but not limited to mental and emotional distress, impairment

of reputation, personal humiliation, and other tangible and intangible harms that would not exist

but for Does 1 and 2’s actions, and these harms are reasonably certain to be experienced into the

future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the relief requested

hereinafter in the Prayer for Relief and any further relief this Court deems is just under the

circumstances.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

SECTION 1983 – UNCONSTITUTIONAL PICKETING AND DEMONSTRATIONS

ORDINANCE AS APPLIED AGAINST DOES 1 AND 2

THE PICKETING AND DEMONSTRATIONS ORDINANCE AND DOES 1 AND 2’S

ACTIONS VIOLATE THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

140. The averments of paragraphs 1-87 are repeated and alleged in full force and effect

as if repeated in their entirety herein.

141. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the States

through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unconstitutionally abridging the freedom of

speech.

22
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 23 of 36

142. The Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance, as applied by Does 1 and 2, and

Does 1 and 2’s actions, policies, and practices impede Plaintiff’s right to Freedom of Speech

because of unlawful enforcement and by granting unfettered discretion to Does 1 and 2 and their

officials, agents, and employees to deny Plaintiff’s right to Freedom of Speech and serves no

rational, substantial, or compelling government interest in the least restrictive means possible.

143. The Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance, as applied by Does 1 and 2, and

Does 1 and 2’s actions, policies, and practices impede Plaintiff’s right to Freedom of Speech

because of content-based restrictions devoid of a compelling government interest.

144. As interpreted and enforced by Does 1 and 2, the Picketing and Demonstrations

Ordinance prohibits Plaintiff’s manner of Freedom of Speech.

145. Does 1 and 2’s actions were performed under color of state law in that they

claimed to be performing an official duty, but their acts were outside the limits of lawful

authority and abusive in manner, and they further acted in a way that misused their power and

were able to do so only because of their position as County officials.

146. Does 1 and 2’s actions were done with malice or reckless indifference to

Plaintiff’s right to Freedom of Speech.

147. Plaintiff sought, and continues to seek, to discuss issues, to distribute literature, to

display signs, and to engage in speech on political, social, and religious topics.

148. The Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance, as applied by Does 1 and 2, and

Does 1 and 2’s actions, policies, and practices, require Plaintiff to censor his speech.

149. Plaintiff was deprived of his right under the First Amendment to engage in

Freedom of Speech activities prohibited by the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance, as

interpreted and enforced by Does 1 and 2.

23
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 24 of 36

150. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, deprived of his right under the First

Amendment to engage in Freedom of Speech.

151. Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages as a result of Does 1 and 2’s

deprivation of his rights, including but not limited to mental and emotional distress, impairment

of reputation, personal humiliation, and other tangible and intangible harms that would not exist

but for Does 1 and 2’s actions, and these harms are reasonably certain to be experienced into the

future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the relief requested

hereinafter in the Prayer for Relief and any further relief this Court deems is just under the

circumstances.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

SECTION 1983 – UNCONSTITUTIONAL PICKETING AND DEMONSTRATIONS

ORDINANCE AS APPLIED AGAINST DOES 1 AND 2

THE PICKETING AND DEMONSTRATIONS ORDINANCE AND DOES 1 AND 2’S

ACTIONS VIOLATE THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

152. The averments of paragraphs 1-87 are repeated and alleged in full force and effect

as if repeated in their entirety herein.

153. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the States

through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unconstitutionally abridging the Free Exercise of

Religion.

154. Plaintiff has a personal belief in the Biblical mandate to spread the Gospel of

Jesus Christ, and Plaintiff engages in activities for the purpose of spreading the Gospel of Jesus

24
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 25 of 36

Christ that are prohibited by the Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance, as interpreted and

enforced by Does 1 and 2.

155. The Bible instructs believers to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with others, and

Plaintiff relies on the Bible to guide his words and actions.

156. Does 1 and 2’s actions, policies, and practices impede Plaintiff’s right to Free

Exercise of Religion because of unlawful enforcement and by exercising unfettered discretion to

deny Plaintiff’s right to Free Exercise of Religion and satisfies no rational, substantial, or

compelling government interest in the least restrictive means possible.

157. The Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance, as applied by Does 1 and 2, and

Defendants’ actions, policies, and practices impede Plaintiff’s right to Free Exercise of Religion

because of content-based restrictions devoid of a compelling government interest.

158. As interpreted and enforced by Does 1 and 2, the Picketing and Demonstrations

Ordinance prohibits Plaintiff’s manner of Free Exercise of Religion.

159. Does 1 and 2’s actions were performed under color of state law in that they

claimed to be performing an official duty, but their acts were outside the limits of lawful

authority and abusive in manner, and they further acted in a way that misused their power and

were able to do so only because of their positions as County officials.

160. Does 1 and 2’s actions were done with malice or reckless indifference to

Plaintiff’s right to Free Exercise of Religion.

161. Plaintiff sought, and continues to seek, to discuss issues from a religious

perspective, to distribute religious literature, to display signs, and to engage in religious speech

through sharing his faith.

25
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 26 of 36

162. The Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance, as applied by Does 1 and 2, and

Does 1 and 2’s actions, policies, and practices, require Plaintiff to censor his religious speech and

imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiff that is not imposed on other individuals.

163. By forcing Plaintiff to choose between abandoning his religious beliefs in order to

gain access to speech in the County’s Public Spaces, and, alternatively, abiding by his religious

beliefs only to be arrested, cited, or fined, Does 1 and 2 have imposed a substantial burden on

Plaintiff’s sincerely-held religious beliefs and his religious exercise.

164. Plaintiff was deprived of his right under the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution to engage in Free Exercise of Religion activities prohibited by the Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance, as interpreted and enforced by Does 1 and 2.

165. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, deprived of his right under the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution to engage in Free Exercise of Religion activities.

166. Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages as a result of Does 1 and 2’s

deprivation of his rights, including but not limited to mental and emotional distress, impairment

of reputation, personal humiliation, and other tangible and intangible harms that would not exist

but for Defendants’ actions, and these harms are reasonably certain to be experienced into the

future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the relief requested

hereinafter in the Prayer for Relief and any further relief this Court deems is just under the

circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

26
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 27 of 36

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment as follows:

AS TO COUNT I:

1. That this Court assume jurisdiction of this matter; and,

2. That this Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining and

enjoining the County, and all persons acting in concert, or participating with the County, from

enforcing the County’s Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance against Plaintiff; and,

3. That this Court issue the requested injunctive relief without a condition of bond or

other security; and,

4. That this Court issue Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act

to determine the Plaintiff’s and the County’s rights and duties regarding enforcing the County’s

Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance; and,

5. That this Court enter a judgment and decree declaring that the County’s Picketing

and Demonstrations Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face; and,

6. That this Court enter adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal

relations with the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the

force and effect of final judgment; and,

7. That this Court grant Plaintiff an award of nominal damages against the County;

and,

8. That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing any

Orders; and,

27
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 28 of 36

9. That this Court grant Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Rule 54, and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, or other applicable law;

and,

10. That this Court grant to Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and

proper.

AS TO COUNT II:

1. That this Court assume jurisdiction of this matter; and,

2. That this Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining and

enjoining the County, and all persons acting in concert, or participating with the County, from

enforcing the County’s Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance against Plaintiff; and,

3. That this Court issue the requested injunctive relief without a condition of bond or

other security; and,

4. That this Court issue Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act

to determine the Plaintiff’s and the County’s rights and duties regarding enforcing the County’s

Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance; and,

5. That this Court enter a judgment and decree declaring the County’s Picketing and

Demonstrations Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face; and,

6. That this Court enter adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal

relations with the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the

force and effect of final judgment; and,

7. That this Court grant Plaintiff an award of nominal damages against the County;

and,

28
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 29 of 36

8. That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing any

Orders; and,

9. That this Court grant Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Rule 54, and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, or other applicable law;

and,

10. That this Court grant to Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and

proper.

AS TO COUNT III:

1. That this Court assume jurisdiction of this matter; and,

2. That this Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining and

enjoining DOES 1 and 2, and all persons acting in concert or participating with DOES 1 and 2,

from enforcing the County’s Special Events Ordinance, in the manner it was enforced against

Plaintiff on September 29, 2019; and,

3. That this Court issue the requested injunctive relief without a condition of bond or

other security; and,

4. That this Court issue Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act

to determine the Plaintiff’s and DOES 1 and 2’s rights and duties regarding enforcing the

County’s Special Events Ordinance; and,

5. That this Court enter a judgment and decree declaring DOES 1 and 2’s

enforcement, interpretation, and application of the County’s Special Events Ordinance, in the

manner it was enforced against Plaintiff on September 29, 2019, violated Plaintiff’s right to the

freedom of speech; and,

29
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 30 of 36

6. That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal relations

with the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the force

and effect of final judgment; and,

7. That this Court grant Plaintiff an award of nominal and/or compensatory and/or

special and/or punitive damages against DOES 1 and 2; and,

8. That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing any

Orders; and,

9. That this Court grant Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Rule 54, and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, or other applicable law;

and,

10. That this Court grant to Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and

proper.

AS TO COUNT IV:

1. That this Court assume jurisdiction of this matter; and,

2. That this Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining and

enjoining DOES 1 and 2, and all persons acting in concert or participating with DOES 1 and 2,

from enforcing the County’s Special Events Ordinance, in the manner it was enforced against

Plaintiff on September 29, 2019; and,

3. That this Court issue the requested injunctive relief without a condition of bond or

other security; and,

4. That this Court issue Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act

to determine the Plaintiff’s and DOES 1 and 2’s rights and duties regarding enforcing the

County’s Special Events Ordinance; and,

30
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 31 of 36

5. That this Court enter a judgment and decree declaring DOES 1 and 2’s

enforcement, interpretation, and application of the County’s Special Events Ordinance, in the

manner it was enforced against Plaintiff on September 29, 2019, violated Plaintiff’s right to the

free exercise of religion; and,

6. That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal relations

with the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the force

and effect of final judgment; and,

7. That this Court grant Plaintiff an award of nominal and/or compensatory and/or

special and/or punitive damages against DOES 1 and 2; and,

8. That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing any

Orders; and,

9. That this Court grant Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Rule 54, and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, or other applicable law;

and,

10. That this Court grant to Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and

proper.

AS TO COUNT V:

1. That this Court assume jurisdiction of this matter; and,

2. That this Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining

DOES 1 and 2, and all persons acting in concert or participating with DOES 1 and 2,

from enforcing the County’s Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance, in the manner it

was enforced against Plaintiff on September 29, 2019; and,

31
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 32 of 36

3. That this Court issue the requested injunctive relief without a condition of bond or other

security; and,

4. That this Court issue Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act to

determine the Plaintiff’s and DOES 1 and 2’s rights and duties regarding enforcing the

County’s Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance; and,

5. That this Court enter a judgment and decree declaring DOES 1 and 2’s enforcement,

interpretation, and application of the County’s Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance,

in the manner it was enforced against Plaintiff on September 29, 2019, violated Plaintiff’s

right to the freedom of speech; and,

6. That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal relations with the

subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the force and

effect of final judgment; and,

7. That this Court grant Plaintiff an award of nominal and/or compensatory and/or special

and/or punitive damages against DOES 1 and 2; and,

8. That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing any Orders;

and,

9. That this Court grant Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Rule 54, and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, or other applicable law;

and,

10. That this Court grant to Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

AS TO COUNT VI:

1. That this Court assume jurisdiction of this matter; and,

32
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 33 of 36

2. That this Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining

DOES 1 and 2, and all persons acting in concert or participating with DOES 1 and 2,

from enforcing the County’s Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance, in the manner it

was enforced against Plaintiff on September 29, 2019; and,

3. That this Court issue the requested injunctive relief without a condition of bond or other

security; and,

4. That this Court issue Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act to

determine the Plaintiff’s and DOES 1 and 2’s rights and duties regarding enforcing the

County’s Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance; and,

5. That this Court enter a judgment and decree declaring DOES 1 and 2’s enforcement,

interpretation, and application of the County’s Picketing and Demonstrations Ordinance,

in the manner it was enforced against Plaintiff on September 29, 2019, violated Plaintiff’s

right to the free exercise of religion; and,

6. That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal relations with the

subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the force and

effect of final judgment; and,

7. That this Court grant Plaintiff an award of nominal and/or compensatory and/or special

and/or punitive damages against DOES 1 and 2; and,

8. That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing any Orders;

and,

9. That this Court grant Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Rule 54, and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, or other applicable law;

and,

33
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 34 of 36

10. That this Court grant to Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

34
 Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 35 of 36

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of November, 2019.

/s/Terry L. Lloyd
TERRY L. LLOYD
GA Bar # 455349
10 Lumpkin Street
Lawrenceville, GA 30046
Tel: 770-962-0118
Fax: 770-963-3424
terrylloyd@bellsouth.net
Local Counsel for Plaintiff

Frederick H. Nelson
Florida Bar No.: 0990523
Lead Trial Counsel for Plaintiff
David J. Markese
Florida Bar No.: 0105041
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
AMERICAN LIBERTIES INSTITUTE
P.O. Box 547503
Orlando, FL 32854-7503
Telephone: (407) 786-7007
Facsimile: (877) 786-3573
E-mail: rick@ali-usa.org
E-mail: dmarkese@ali-usa.org

35
Case 3:19-cv-00102-CDL Document 1 Filed 11/22/19 Page 36 of 36