••

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 1 of 48

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

REVEREND WILLIAM SHANKS, KATHLEEN BENFIELD, REVEREND GRANT STORMS, and UNITED FOR LIFE, INC.,

04~l057

Plaintiffs, v.

CIVNO. SECTm Rfv1AG. 4

PARISH OF JEFFERSON, LOUISIANA, JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WILLIAM A. LAZARO, JR., individually and in his official capacity, and OFFICER DANIEL SAMROW, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT Come now the Plaintiffs, by counsel and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for their causes of action against Defendants aver the following:
I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.c. § 1983 to protect the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and other persons to speak in opposition to abortion. By policy and practice the
_p.' ]9,
_ ProcessJ."t:.~~
L Dktd _ _~.I..Aoo""""
_ CtRmDep,_ __ _ OQ~. NQ.".."..,...".."....-_

,

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 2 of 48

Defendants unlawfully restrict these rights, as the Code of Ordinances, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana (herein "Jefferson Parish Ordinances" or "Ordinances") are facially overbroad, vague, involve content based and viewpoint discrimination, and unconstitutionally restrict Plaintiffs' speech. These constitutional defects give rise to both facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the discriminatory ordinances. 2. Jefferson Parish Ordinances require citizens to obtain prior permission before assembling "any group" or speaking at any "public gatherings" within the unincorporated areas of the Parish. 3. Jefferson Parish Ordinances do not define "group" or "public gatherings." 4. Jefferson Parish Ordinances do not provide a time limit nor any guidelines regarding when and how an application for permission to speak and assemble must be submitted. 5. The form used for application for permission to speak and assemble indicates that it must be must be submitted at least 30 days in advance, and must be approved by formal resolution of the Jefferson Parish Council. 6. Jefferson Parish Ordinances subject citizens to criminal and civil sanctions when they engage in routine activities, such as playing radios at low volumes on a public sidewalk and using sound amplifiers for outdoor worship services on the grounds of local churches, if a prior permit and parish council permission is not obtained 30 days in advance. 7. Jefferson Parish Ordinances prohibit leafleting in streets and on sections of public sidewalks. 8. Jefferson Parish therefore restricts the free speech of the Plaintiffs and other citizens. 9. Jefferson Parish officials, including named the Defendants, have applied Jefferson Parish Ordinances against Plaintiffs in a manner designed and intended to deprive and hinder Plaintiffs' free speech and expressive activities. 10. To redress the irreparable harm that Plaintiffs are suffering, and have suffered, under the Jefferson Parish Ordinances and practices, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' policies violate First Amendment rights on their face and as applied and

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 3 of 48
threatened to be applied to the Plaintiffs and others. 11. Plaintiffs also seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from
further enforcing the challenged ordinances in a manner inconsistent with their constitutional rights, and damages.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. Jurisdiction for this case is based on 28 US.c. §§ 1331, 1343, 1367, 2201, 2202, and 42 US.c. §§ 1983 and 1988. 13. Venue is proper under 28 US.c. § 1391 in the Eastern District of Louisiana because the claims arose in this district.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFFS
14. Plaintiff Reverend William Shanks is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint a citizen of the United States and a resident of Metairie, Louisiana.
15. Plaintiff Kathleen Benfield is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint a citizen of the United States and a resident of New Orleans, Louisiana.
16. Plaintiff Reverend Grant Storms is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint a citizen of the United States and a resident of New Orleans, Louisiana.
17. Plainti ff United for Life, Inc., is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana, and is an entity capable of suing and being sued. IV. IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANTS
18. Defendant Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana is a municipal corporation existing under the
Page 2

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 4 of 48
laws and Constitution of the State of Louisiana, and is a corporate entity capable of suing and being sued. 19. Defendant Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office is a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana, and is capable of suing and being sued. Among other things, the office is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the ordinances of Jefferson Parish as they relate to citizens' speech and expressive activities. 20. Defendant William A. Lazaro, Jr., is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint the director of the Citizens' Affairs Office of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Among other things, he is charged with the administration and enforcement the Jefferson Parish Ordinances as they relate to citizens' speech and expressive activities. 21. Defendant Daniel Samrow is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint an officer for the Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Department. Among other things, he is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Jefferson Parish Ordinances as they relate to citizens' speech and expressive activities. 22. Each defendant is sued in his official capacity, and in his individual and personal capacity.
v.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Challenged Ordinances
23. The Jefferson Parish Ordinances restricting private speech are contained in three sections of the Code of Ordinances: Chapter 6, Article IV ("Fairs, Circuses and Exhibitions"); Chapter 20, Article V ("Offenses against Public Peace"); Chapter 22, Article V ("Peddlers and Solicitors"); and Chapter 26 ("Public Assemblies"). Relevant excerpts are attached hereto
Page 3

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 5 of 48
as Appendix 1, and incorporated herein by reference. Restrictions on Public Assembly and Speech 24. The Ordinances and policies, which make it a crime to assemble or speak at any "public
gatherings" within the unincorporated areas of Jefferson Parish without obtaining a permit 30 days in advance, place unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. 25. The Ordinances attach a range of sanctions for violations of said restrictions, including a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or both, as well as civil proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(See Ordinances, §§ 1-10, 1-11.)
26. Chapter 6, Article IV of the Ordinances (§§ 6-51 through 6-61) is contained under the heading "Fairs, Circuses and Exhibitions," and references in a footnote, as its "authority to regulate circuses," Louisiana Revised Statutes 4:7 and 47:365.
27. § 6-51 provides definitions for terms used in Article IV, such as "amusement attraction,"
"certificate of inspection," and "fair," but provides no definition for the terms "exhibition," "show," or "public gathering." 28. § 6-56 states:
It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct fairs, exhibitions, shows, circus performances or other public gatherings within the unincorporated areas ofthe parish without first securing approval ofthe parish council. 29. § 6-57 lists requirements for a permit to be issued for a public gathering, including the necessity of the applicant showing proof of a liability insurance policy for participants. 30. § 6-61(a) requires a cash deposit of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) plus the sum of one cent ($0.01) per square foot of ground to be occupied before a permit can be issued to
Page 4

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 6 of 48
conduct "any type of exhibition show." 31. The Ordinances do not define "exhibition show." 32. § 6-61(c) states that the parish council "may exempt from the provisions of this section bona
fide churches, schools and charitable organizations." (Emphasis added.) 33. The Jefferson Parish permit form entitled "Fairs, Exhibitions, Shows, Craft Shows,
Circuses, Tents, or Other Public Gatherings" (attached hereto as Appendix 2), states (emphasis in the original):
APPLICATION SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY THE SPECIAL EVENTS OFFICE 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EVENT DATE. PROOF OF NONPROFIT TAX EXEMPT STATUS IS REQUIRED AND MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION. THIS INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. APPLICATION MUST BE COMPLETED IN FULL AND SIGNED BY PERSON APPLYING (OVER 13 YRS OLD). YOU MUST OBTAIN COUNCIL APPROVAL (COUNCIL RESOLUTION). 34. The permit form requires extensive information from the applicant, including: a description of the "type of event" planned; the name and tax identification number of the sponsoring organization; the specific date, time, and address of the planned public gathering; the "purpose of the event;" whether beverages, food, live music, animals, and/or mechanical amusement rides will be used; whether tents or canopies will be used; and whether the event will be open to the general public. 35. The permit form also requires the applicant to sign a "Hold Harmless and Indemnification of Jefferson Parish" agreement as a prerequisite of any public gathering. 36. Chapter 26 of the Ordinances is contained under the heading "Public Assemblies." § 26-1 states:
Any group may assemble within the parish by obtaining a permit from the parish council.
Page 5

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 7 of 48
37. The Jefferson Parish Council meets every other week, usually no more than twice per month. Meetings are held at alternating locations from the East Bank of the parish to the West Bank, and all meetings begin at 10:00 a.m.
38. The Ordinances and restrictions require that a permit for a public gathering can only be obtained by a resolution of the parish council.
39. A council resolution can only be voted upon at a regularly and duly constituted meeting of the council.
40. Neither the Ordinances nor the permit form indicate whether an appearance and/or presentation by the applicant before the parish council is required, allowed, or recommended.
41. Neither the Ordinances nor the permit form indicate or provide objective standards or guidelines to guide the parish council in their decision whether or not to grant a permit.
42. Neither the Ordinances nor the permit form indicate or provide a time limit within which the parish council must decide whether or not to grant a permit.
43. Neither the Ordinances nor the permit form indicate or provide an opportunity for appeal or prompt judicial review of the parish council's decision to deny a permit.
44. Individuals may violate §§ 6-51 through 6-61 and § 26-1, and be subject to criminal and civil sanctions, by engaging in the following speech activities without obtaining a permit and parish council permission 30 days in advance: a. Gathering more than two persons for a political debate or discussion; b. Picketing in parks and in public streets; c. Joining with a small group on public property to sing hymns or engage in religious worship;
Page 6

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 8 of 48

d. Assembling a small family for a picnic in a public park; and

e.

Meeting with a small group of friends on public property for any purpose.

45. The said Ordinances and restrictions are inherently unconstitutional because they place a

prior restraint on free speech, are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, do not require a

prompt decision on permit applications nor an appeal process, and allow for unfettered

discretion on the part of parish decision makers and the prohibition of a wide variety of

protected speech based upon its content and viewpoint.

Additional Restrictions on Speech: "Noise"

46. Chapter 20, Article V of the Ordinances (§§ 20-101 through 20-102) is contained under the

heading "Offenses against Public Peace," and includes a noise ordinance (§ 20-102).

47. § 20-102(b) provides several definitions for terms used in Article V, including: "Noise-

sensitive area" ("where a school, hospital, nursing home, church, court, or public library is

located"); "Permit" ("an authorization received from the parish's office of carnival and

special events or other appropriate permitting agency to conduct a parade, special event,

fair, revival, celebration or other group event"); and "Residential area" ("an area composed

of certain lands and structures having single-family, two-family, or multifamily residential

characteristics").

48. § 20-102 does not provide definitions for the terms "parade," "special event," "revival,"

"celebration," "other group event," or "public park."

49. § 20-1 02(c) prohibits "excessive noise" in general, but § 20-102 provides no preCIse

definition of that term.

50. § 20-102(£) provides maximum permissible sound limits, by reference to the American

Page 7

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 9 of 48
National Standards Institute Specification for sound level meters (ANSI.4-1971, as
amended), in a table ("Table 1") specifying the limits for four land use categories.
51. § 20-1 02(e) provides exemptions for maximum permissible sound limits for seven
categories of person and things, including "[n]oises made by persons having obtained a
permit," and "[a]ny noise resulting from activities of a temporary duration, for which a
permit has been granted pursuant to this section, and which conforms to the conditions and
limits stated thereon."
52. § 20-1 02(h) provides specific prohibitions against eight categories of things including:
(2) Radios, televisions, musical instruments and similar devices
a. The operating or playing or any radio, musical instrument or similar device which produces or reproduces sound on the public right-ofway in such a manner as to be plainly audible to any person other than the operator of the device.
b. The operating or playing of any radio, television, phonograph, musical instrument or similar device which produces or reproduces sound in a motor vehicle or public park in a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet.
c. The operating or playing of any radio, television, phonographs, musical instruments or similar device which produces or reproduces sound in such a manner as to exceed the levels set forth in Table 1 for the land use category.
and
(3) Loudspeakers and sound amplifiers.
The using or operating of any loudspeaker, loudspeaker system, sound amplifier or other similar device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, and 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. on weekends and holidays, within or adjacent to residential or noise sensitive areas such that the sound therefrom is plainly audible across the real property line of the source; provided, however, that this shall not apply to any public performance, gathering or parade for which a permit has been obtained.
Page 8

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 10 of 48
53. Individuals may violate § 20-102 and be subject to criminal and civil sanctions by engaging in the following speech activities without obtaining a pennit and parish council pennission 30 days in advance: a. Playing an acoustical guitar in a public park, public recreational area, or on a public sidewalk; b. Playing a small radio or recorded message on a public sidewalk at a volume level so low that only two persons could hear; c. Playing a small radio at nonnal volume levels on a picnic blanket or during a pickup basketball game in a public park or recreational area; d. Using a microphone and small loudspeakers or sound amplifiers to address a crowd of neighbors for a Saturday morning neighborhood beautification project; and e. Using a microphone and small loudspeakers or sound amplifiers for an outdoor worship service or other morning or late evening activity on the grounds of a local church.
54. The said Ordinances and polices are inherently unconstitutional because they place a prior restraint on free speech, are unconstitutionally v~gue and overbroad, do not require a prompt decision on pennit applications nor an appeal process, and allow for unfettered discretion on the part of parish decision makers and the prohibition of a wide variety of protected speech based upon its content and viewpoint.
Additional Restrictions on Speech: "Handbilling" 55. Chapter 22, Article V of the Ordinances (§§ 22-121 through 22-125) is contained under the
heading "Peddlers and Solicitors," and includes restrictions against leafleting. 56. Chapter 22 lists as Cross references: "Hawkers and peddlers disturbing the peace, § 20-
102(b)(5); occupational license tax: for peddling and hawking, § 35-20l." 57. § 20-102(b)(5) of the Ordinances does not exist, and § 35-201 concerns an unrelated
subject (i.e., collection of hotel occupancy taxes). 58. § 22-121 provides five definitions for tenns used in Article V, including:
Page 9

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 11 of 48
Distribute and distribution shall mean the gIvmg or circulation of any handbill, written advertisement, or pUblication. The words shall also mean and include the making of any announcement to the public, whether oral or written, concerning an appeal, assemblage, athletic or sports event, bazaar benefit, campaign, contest, dance, drive, entertainment, exhibition, exposition, party, performance, picnic, sale or social gathering, to which the public is invited or requested to make a contribution.
Streets shall mean all public streets, roads, thoroughfares, highways, bridges, alleys, passageways, rights-of-way, medians, curbs and shoulders of the road. 59. § 22-123 states:
No person shall stand, sit or remain next to the travelled [sic] part of any street, for the purpose of distributing or otherwise circulating any handbill, written advertisements or publication to the drivers or passengers of vehicles using the street. 60. The Ordinances dot not define "travelled [sic] part of any street," "handbill," or what is meant by a vehicle "using the street." 61. § 22-125 attaches a range of sanctions for violations of said restrictions, including a fine not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding thirty (30) days, or both. 62. Individuals may violate § 22-123 and be subject to criminal sanctions by engaging in the following speech activities while standing on or using a public sidewalk or other public rights-of-way:
a. Accepting donations for the Salvation Army, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, or any other charitable cause;
b. Distributing free tickets to a public concert;
c. Distributing invitations or making a verbal announcement to a church revival service or bake sale;
d. Making a verbal announcement regarding any public policy or political debate;
e. Making a campaign speech for public office, or generally encouraging persons to exercise their right to vote; and
Page 10

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 12 of 48

f.

Allowing children to sell lemonade from a homemade stand.

63. The said Ordinances and polices are inherently unconstitutional because they are

unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and allow for unfettered discretion on the part of

parish decision makers and the prohibition of a wide variety of protected speech based upon

its content and viewpoint.

Application ofthe Speech Restrictions to the Plaintiffs

64. The Plaintiffs, Rev. Shanks, Mrs. Benfield, Rev. Storms, and other members of United for

Life, Inc., desire to engage in speech on the public ways of Jefferson Parish without prior

permission from the Jefferson Parish Council.

65. Plaintiffs have refrained, and continue to refrain, from speaking on the public ways of

Jefferson Parish without the required prior permission from the Jefferson Parish Council.

66. Plaintiffs are pro-life advocates opposed to the practice of induced abortion due to their

religious and moral beliefs.

67. Plaintiffs regularly travel to the public ways in the area of 3040 Ridgelake Drive~ the

location of Causeway Medical Suite, a facility in which abortions are performed

(hereinafter "Causeway")~ to peaceably express their message that abortion is the killing

of a human child, and that alternative choices to abortion are available to women.

68. As part of their ministry and peaceful pro-life advocacy, Plaintiffs offer literature and

sidewalk counseling to persons approaching Causeway. Plaintiffs do this in an effort to

persuade women not to abort their unborn babies by offering alternatives to abortion,

including adoption, advice, and emotional support.

69. In addition to distributing literature and offering sidewalk counseling, Plaintiffs engage in

other peaceful expressive activities on the public ways at or near Causeway, including,

but not limited to, Christian witnessing, praying, and worshipping their Lord and Savior

Page 11

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 13 of 48
Jesus Christ. 70. Other groups and individuals demonstrate against abortion, counsel, or pray at Causeway.
These other groups and individuals are not associated with Plaintiffs although they share the common belief that abortion is morally, politically, and/or spiritually wrong. 71. The Pregnancy Testing Center, a crisis pregnancy facility, is located at 3038 Ridgelake Drive, in the building adjacent to Causeway. 72. Pro-life advocates have been educating and counseling both men and women on the public ways adjacent to Causeway since approximately 1990. During this period, Plaintiffs have regularly and consistently engaged in peaceful expressive activities outside Causeway on days the clinic provided abortions to women. 73. Specifically, when Plaintiffs counselor seek to educate persons entering Causeway, Plaintiffs stand on the public ways in or near the public crosswalk that stretches across the driveway leading into the clinic parking lot. 74. Plaintiffs sometimes approach persons as they walk to the clinic and offer literature describing the abortion procedure and the alternatives available to pregnant women. On occasion, individuals will engage in dialogue with Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs will then counsel those individuals about the harms and risks of abortion. 75. It is, and has been, the customary practice of Causeway to employ Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office personnel (hereinafter "contract officers") as security for the clinic. These contract officers often arrive at the clinic in their patrol cars. Contract officers dress in full sheriff uniform, wear official sheriff badges, and carry loaded sidearms. 76. It has been a customary practice of the Sheriffs Office to assign an on-duty supervisor to
Page 12

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 14 of 48
monitor the activities of pro-life advocates at Causeway, and to assist contract officers. 77. For the past 15 years, on the Saturday that coincides with the week of January 22nd,
Plaintiffs have organized and held a peaceful expressive activity (hereinafter "Memorial Service") on the public ways at or near Causeway, to somberly observe and memorialize their opposition to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. 78. In previous years, the Memorial Service has sometimes been held, with permission, on the private property of the Pregnancy Testing Center. 79. At each annual Memorial Service, including the Memorial Service held on January 24, 2004, the Sheriffs Office has dispatched on-duty, uniformed officers to monitor the activities of Plaintiffs. 80. For the last several years, Defendant Samrow has led the Sheriffs Office on-duty officers at each annual Memorial Service conducted by Plaintiffs. 81. In its fifteen year history, there has never been one arrest, skirmish, or other unlawful activity at the peaceful, orderly Memorial Service. 82. Nevertheless, at each annual Memorial Service from approximately 1990 to 1999, the Sheriffs Office dispatched scores of officers to attend the event in full riot gear, including snipers with rifles on neighboring rooftops. 83. The riot officers were dispatched as a means of intimidating Plaintiffs and other Memorial Service participants. 84. Because the riot officers were unnecessary and unused, the practice ceased In approximately 2000. 85. Still, Defendants, including Defendant Samrow, have engaged in continuing threats and
Page 13

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 15 of 48
intimidation of Plaintiffs and other Memorial Service participants over approximately the past four years. 86. Since at least January, 2000, it has been the routine and customary practice of Defendants to prevent and impede Plaintiffs in their use of sound amplification equipment, a small "soapbox" speakers' platform, and musical instruments on the public ways of Jefferson Parish. 87. Because of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have been very reluctant to, and have refrained from, speaking on the public ways ofJefferson Parish because they fear arrest or citation. Events Prior to January 24, 2004 88. On December 8, 2003, Rev. Shanks completed and submitted the Jefferson Parish Carnival and Special Events permit application form for the January 24, 2004 Memorial Service. (See Appendix 2). 89. Rev. Shanks indicated on the permit form that the purpose of the event was the "observation of Roe v. Wade decision" at the location of 3040 Ridgelake Drive in Metairie. He supplied this information because the permit form required it. 90. Rev. Shanks also checked the box on the permit application form to indicate that "live music" would be played at the Memorial Service. 91. On or about January 15, 2004, Rev. Shanks received a letter from Defendant Lazaro, dated January 13, 2004, in which he advised Rev. Shanks that the application for a "Special Event permit" was still pending. (See Appendix 3). 92. The Lazaro letter further stated that the permit would not be granted unless Rev. Shanks produced a notarized affidavit of permission to use the property, or a bona fide lease
Page 14

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 16 of 48
agreement, from the owner of 3040 Ridgelake Drive. The letter was copied to Deputy Parish Attorney Louis Gruntz, Carol Champagne, Police Chief John Thevenot, Defendant Samrow, and attorney Ed Golden. 93. Upon his receipt of the Lazaro letter, Rev. Shanks contacted Mr. Lazaro by telephone to clarify and explain that, just like in previous years, the Plaintiffs' planned event would be held on the public property adjacent to the actual municipal address of 3040 Ridgelake Drive, and that participants would not obstruct or block the free and uninterrupted ingress, egress, or regress of any property or business located in the vicinity. 94. The Defendant Parish officials still failed to make a decision on Plaintiffs' Special Event permit application. 95. On January 21,2004, in a conversation with Rev. Shanks, Defendant Samrow stated that Plaintiffs' expressive activities at or near Defendant Clinic required a permit pursuant to parish ordinances. Without the permit, Defendant Samrow threatened that Plaintiffs would be subject to arrest if they utilized small amplification equipment or a small "soapbox" platform at the Memorial Service. Defendants were Informed oftheir Unlawful Conduct 96. On or about January 20,2004, Plaintiffs sought the assistance of the undersigned counsel, who faxed a six-page letter on January 21,2004, to Jefferson Parish Attorney Thomas G. Wilkinson. 97. The January 21, 2004, letter placed Defendants on notice of the unconstitutionality of their actions, including the failure to act in timely fashion upon Rev. Shanks' Special Event application, the failure to recognize that peaceable expressive activity on public
Page 15

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 17 of 48

property does not require a prior permit, and the fact that a permit should not be required

for a small soapbox stage or volume-controlled amplification equipment.

98. On January 22, 2004, Mr. Wilkinson faxed a response letter to Plaintiffs' counsel,

wherein he stated that:

a.

Causeway's owners had complained to the Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office that

Rev. Shanks and his groups' gatherings were in violation of the provisions of

LSA-R.S. 14:326, but that parish officials determined that said statute should not

apply;

b.

Rev. Shanks' planned January 24, 2004, "march" along the public sidewalks

of Jefferson Parish from 901 Beverly Garden Drive to 3032 Ridgelake Drive

required no permit;

c.

Rev. Shanks' planned January 24, 2004, "rally" did reqUIre a pnor permit

pursuant to § 6-51 of the Ordinances;

d.

Said permit could only be obtained after approval of the parish council;

e.

Said permit was impossible to obtain since the parish council had met on

January 21,2004, and would not meet again until February 4,2004; and

f.

"If Rev. Shanks conducts a 'Rally' without the requisite permit, he does so at his

own peril."

99. The Wilkinson letter was copied to Defendants Lazaro and Samrow, as well as Police

Chief John Trevenot and attorney Ed Golden.

100. On January 22, 2004, Plaintiffs' counsel faxed a SIX-page response letter to Mr.

Wilkinson explaining in detail why Defendants' interpretation and intended application of

the Ordinances was and would be unconstitutional.

101. Mr. Wilkinson responded with a short, faxed letter on January 23, 2004, reiterating his

earlier position.

Page 16

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 18 of 48
Events ofJanuary 24, 2004 102. On the morning of Saturday, January 24, 2004, Plaintiffs and a few members of their
group met on the public ways in the 3000 block of Ridgelake Drive. 103. At the time of the Plaintiffs' arrival, the owner of the office building next door to
Causeway was in front of his building with Defendant Samrow, and several other uniformed sheriffs officers. One officer put police tape around the owner's building. 104. Plaintiffs approached Defendant Samrow and asked whether he intended to allow them to utilize amplification equipment or a small stand later to elevate the person addressing the assembled crowd. 105. Defendant Samrow responded that if Plaintiffs used amplification, they could not stand still or put any equipment down on public property. Samrow said that his orders were from "the attorney for the Sheriffs office" and from Defendant Lazaro, whom he expected to appear at the location shortly. 106. Defendant Samrow threatened to issue citations and begin making arrests if Plaintiffs placed anything on the area that is the parish right-of-way between the sidewalk and the street. 107. Around 10:00 a.m., the march along the public sidewalks from St. Angela Merici Catholic Church, 901 Beverly Garden Drive, to the 3000 block of Ridgelake Drive proceeded without incident. lOS. Between 200-300 people then assembled on the sidewalks near 3040 Ridgelake Drive and on the parish right-of-way across the street. The officers closed off one lane of traffic and allowed some participants to stand in the street.
Page 17

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 19 of 48
109. To be heard among the crowd at the Memorial Service, persons who addressed the group used a step stool as a make-shift "soapbox" and a microphone. The sound was amplified by a battery-operated speaker. Due to Defendants' threats, event participants were forced to carry the speaker, rather than place it on the ground.
110. The volume of the speaker remained reasonable at all times, and could only be heard in the immediate vicinity of the crowd.
111. Two other participants played a keyboard and a guitar at certain times during the Memorial Service, but were not allowed to place the keyboard stand upon the ground. Due to Defendants' threats, other event participants were forced to carry the keyboard as it was played.
112. Due to said harassment by Defendants, Plaintiffs and other Memorial Service participants were substantially limited in their ability to speak and express their ideas and messages to the crowd, and were soon forced, upon threat of arrest, to stop their speech entirely.
113. In an effort to accommodate the Defendants' orders, Plaintiffs moved their sound equipment and keyboard from the public right-of-way to a less desirable location, and placed them on a flatbed trailer that was legally parked on the nearby street.
114. As they began their speech activities again, Defendant Samrow made new threats of arrest, and said, "You can't have live music without a permit!"
115. Rev. Shanks said calmly, ''I'm in charge here. Just arrest me." To which Defendant Samrow snapped, "No, we're going to arrest everyone!"
116. Due to said threats by Defendants, Plaintiffs and other Memorial Service participants were forced to stop their speech entirely.
Page 18

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 20 of 48
117. At all times, Plaintiffs and Memorial Service participants were peaceable and acted in a lawful manner.
118. The Memorial Service continued until approximately 12:00 noon, at which time participants left the area.
119. Ordinances were and have been applied against Plaintiffs in a manner designed and intended to deprive and hinder Plaintiffs' expressive activities.
120. It is the policy, custom, or practice of Defendants to threaten Plaintiffs and other pro-life advocates with citation and arrest for expressive activities occurring within the public rights-of-way near Causeway, as described herein.
121. It is the policy, custom, or practice of Defendants to act pursuant to, and in accordance with, the requests and instructions issued by Causeway, its owners, officers, agents, or employees, in depriving and hindering Plaintiffs' expressive activities.
122. Defendants knew, or should have known, that the Plaintiffs may utilize sound equipment and assemble for peaceable activities on public property, but nevertheless applied the Ordinances in a manner designed to hinder and deter Plaintiffs from speaking and assembling to express their pro-life views.
Defendants' Conduct Chills and Hinders Plaintiffs' Speech 123. The actions of Defendants as set forth above hindered, deterred, and chilled Plaintiffs in
the exercise of their First Amendment rights, and their rights to be free from intimidation, harassment, and assault. 124. Defendants have limited Plaintiffs' and other pro-life advocates' access to the sidewalk/crosswalk and have not permitted them to take full advantage of the public
Page 19

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 21 of 48
rights-of-way. Such confinement hindered, and continues to hinder, Plaintiffs' ability to effectively communicate with assembled groups, Causeway clientele, and others. 125. Plaintiffs have refrained, and continue to refrain, from taking full advantage of the public rights of way of Jefferson Parish out of fear that they will be arrested or cited for violation of the Ordinances if they do so. 126. Defendants' Ordinances as they pertain to free speech and assembly are so vague that Plaintiffs and other persons of reasonable intelligence cannot ascertain their precise meaning or requirements. 127. Plaintiffs desire to continue to counsel and distribute literature on the public ways in front of or near the Causeway clinic, and to continue to hold their annual Memorial Service in late January of each year, but fear they will be arrested or cited by Defendants if they continue to do so absent preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. 128. Plaintiffs have been made to censor their speech and leafleting on the public ways of Jefferson Parish because they have not obtained permission from the parish council. 129. Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm from the conduct and challenged ordinances of Defendants. 130. Unless and until the conduct and challenged policies of Defendants are enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
VI. STATEMENT OF LAW 131. At all times relevant to this Complaint, each and all of the acts alleged herein were attributed to the Defendants, acting under the color, authority and pretense of state law,
Page 20

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 22 of 48
statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, usages, and policies of Jefferson Parish and the State of Louisiana. 132. The unlawful actions of Jefferson Parish Sheriff officers and other Parish officials, as alleged herein, were taken or ratified by final policy makers for the Parish of Jefferson, and thus constitute policies, practices, customs, and usages sufficient to impose municipal liability. 133. Speech is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. 134. First Amendment rights of speech and association extend to the public ways of Jefferson Parish. 135. The lack of adequate training of Jefferson Parish Sheriff officers and other Parish officials in the areas of First Amendment rights, and the use and identification of traditional public fora, constituted deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, and was a policy, custom, or practice of the Jefferson Parish sufficient to impose municipal liability. 136. § 6-51, et seq., of the Ordinances regulates "Fairs, Circuses and Exhibitions" and should not have been applied to the quintessential free speech events planned by Plaintiffs. 137. Defendants misapplied the Ordinances in a manner designed and intended to deprive Plaintiffs of rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 19 of the Louisiana Constitution. 138. The public rights of way in front of or adjacent to the clinic are traditional public fora for purposes of speech and other expressive activities protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Louisiana Constitution.
Page 21

~-~---------

-

~--------

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 23 of 48
139. Use of sound amplification devices is speech protected by the First Amendment, and Article I, Section 7 of the Louisiana Constitution.
140. Leafleting on public rights-of-way is speech protected by the First Amendment, and Article I, Section 7 of the Louisiana Constitution.
14l. Plaintiffs' expressive activities on the dates alleged herein at or near the Defendant Clinic were constitutionally protected. Plaintiffs were denied access to the public rights-of-way on the basis of the content of their speech.
142. The above cited sections of Chapter 6, Article IV, Chapter 20, Article Y, Chapter 22, Article Y, and Chapter 26 of the Ordinances are unconstitutional on their face on grounds that they are substantially vague, overbroad, impermissibly restrict free speech, association, and freedom of the press, act as prior restraints, lack procedural safeguards, violate equal protection, and grant parish officials with unfettered discretion in the restriction of expression.
143. The above cited sections of Chapter 6, Article IV of the Ordinances are unconstitutional on as applied on grounds that they are substantially vague, overbroad, impermissibly restrict free speech and association, act as prior restraints, lack procedural safeguards, violate equal protection, and grant parish officials with unfettered discretion in the restriction of expreSSIOn.
144. The actions of Defendants as alleged herein demonstrated a reckless or callous disregard for Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
145. All Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for damagcs arising from the unlawful acts alleged herein.
146. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to engage III peaceful expressive activity in traditional public fora was clearly established.
Page 22

------------------

-

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 24 of 48
147. Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury to their constitutional rights from the threats of arrest and harassment employed by Defendants, absent injunctive relief.
148. Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §§ 1983 and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to appropriate relief invalidating the unconstitutional Ordinances. VII. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH & ASSEMBLY UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION
149. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them herein.
150. The Ordinances and conduct of the Defendants constitute a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, by among other things, requiring a thirty day advance approval and permit before allowing assemblies and expressive activities on public property.
151. The Ordinances and conduct of the Defendants constitute a violation of the Article I, Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Louisiana Constitution, by among other things, requiring a thirty day advance approval and permit before allowing assemblies and expressive activities on public property.
152. Defendants' Ordinances constitute an impermissible viewpoint-based and content-based restriction of constitutionally protected expression.
153. The Ordinances vest unfettered discretion in the Defendants to restrict constitutionally protected expression.
154. The Ordinances and the actions of Defendants are prior restraints and restrictions on speech in areas that are commonly considered traditional public fora.
155. The policies are not content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on expression.
Page 23

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 25 of 48
Further, they are not narrowly tailored, do not serve significant government interests, and do not leave open ample alternative channels of communication as the Constitution requires. 156. Defendants' Ordinances are vague and overbroad. 157. The policies restrict citizens' freedom of association and are not supported by a narrowly tailored compelling state interest. 158. The policies fail to provide adequate procedures for administrative and judicial appeal and redress of denials to engage in expression. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
VIII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION 159. Plaintiff realleges all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs and incorporates them herein. 160. The distribution of written expression is a classic example of the exercise of the right to freedom of the press. 161. No compelling government interest exists to justify the restrictions imposed on such an exercise of the freedom of the press by the Defendants' Ordinances, nor is the restriction the least restrictive means available to serve any permissible government purpose intended to be served by Defendants' policies dealing with literature distribution. 162. Defendants' Ordinances on their face and as applied impose a system of prior restraints on the publication and/or circulation of Plaintiffs printed and oral expression. This system of prior restraints is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 163. Defendants' Ordinances on their face and as applied impose a system of prior restraints on
Page 24
-------- - - -

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 26 of 48
the publication and/or circulation of Plaintiffs printed and oral expression. This system of prior restraints is unconstitutional under Article I, Section 7 of the Louisiana Constitution. 164. By their actions, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' rights to distribute literature expressing their religious and political views. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
IX. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION 165. Plaintiff realleges all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs and incorporates them herein. 166. The Ordinances and conduct of the Defendants constitute a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 167. The Ordinances and conduct of the Defendants constitute a violation of Article I, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution. 168. Defendants' Ordinances are vague and overbroad. 169. Defendants' policies prohibiting public gatherings, group assemblies, literature distribution, and other forms of expression fail to adequately advise, notify, or inform citizens threatened with criminal and civil sanctions for violation ofthese provisions. 170. Defendants' Ordinances do not provide for prompt review and appeal of their permit scheme and related restrictions on free speech and expression. 171. Defendants' policies restricting speech fail to adequately advise citizens subject to criminal and civil sanctions under them of the obligations they create, and they are unconstitutionally vague, on their face, in violation of the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth hereinafter in
Page 25

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 27 of 48
the prayer for relief.
x.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION
172. Plaintiff realleges all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs and incorporates them herein.
173. Defendants' Ordinances, on their face, treat Plaintiffs and other citizens differently from other similarly situated individuals and groups on the basis of the content of their speech, viewpoint, and the size of their groups.
174. Defendants do not have a compelling state interest for such disparate treatment of Plaintiffs' expressIon.
175. Therefore, said conduct of Defendants compnses an unconstitutional and continuing interference and infringement upon the rights of Plaintiffs and other citizen groups and individuals to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
176. Said conduct of Defendants further compnses an unconstitutional and continuing interference and infringement upon the rights of Plaintiffs and other citizen groups and individuals to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by Article I, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court: a. Assume jurisdiction over this action;
Page 26

•

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 28 of 48

b. Declare that the public road and sidewalk rights of way adjacent to 3040

Ridgelake Avenue, Metairie, Louisiana are traditional public fora for speech;

c. Declare that the Code of Ordinances, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana cannot be used

to exclude Plaintiffs from accessing public rights-of-way;

d. Declare that Plaintiffs possess a First Amendment right to use sound amplification

devices subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner regulation;

e. Declare that Sections 6-51, 6-56, 6-57, and 6-61 of the Code of Ordinances,

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs;

f.

Declare that Section 26-1 of the Code of Ordinances, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana

is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs;

g. Declare that Section 20-102 of the Code of Ordinances, Jefferson Parish,

Louisiana is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs;

h. Declare that Sections 22-122 and 22-123 of the Code of Ordinances, Jefferson

Parish, Louisiana are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs;

1.

Declare that the actions of Defendants on the dates herein set forth for the reasons

herein set forth violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights;

J.

Enter preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants from using the

Code of Ordinances, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana governing "fairs, circuses and exhibitions" to

hinder expressive activities occurring in public rights of way;

k. Enter preliminary and permanent injunctions enjOInIng Defendants from

retaliating against Plaintiffs for the peaceful exercise of their constitutional rights;

1.

Enter preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the enforcement of

Page 27

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 29 of 48 •
Sections 6-51, 6-56,6-57,6-61,20-102,22-121;,22-123, and 26-1 of the Code of Ordinances,
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana;
m. Award Plaintiffs nominal damages against the Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana for
the violation of their constitutional rights;
n. Award Plaintiffs nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages against
Defendants Lazaro and Samrow for their willful and deliberate violation of Plaintiffs' clearly
established constitutional rights;
o. Award Plaintiffs their costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses, pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1988; and
p. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of April, 2004.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND LAW CENTER
BY~.Ml~
1. Micl Johnson Louisiana State Bar No. 26059 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Southeast Regional Service Center 401 Market Street, Ste. 900 Shreveport, LA 71101 Phone: (318) 459-2239 Facsimile: (318) 222-0458 Benjamin W. Bull* Arizona State Bar No. 009940 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND LAW CENTER 15333 N. Pima Road, Suite 165 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone: (480) 444-0020 Genia Coleman-Lee* Louisiana State Bar No. 25372
Page 28

•

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 30 of 48

P.O. Box 17121 Lake Charles, LA 70616 Phone: (337) 491-9900
*Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice to be submitted

Page 29

•

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 31 of 48

VERIFICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF JEFFERSON

On this day 13th day of April, 2004, REVEREND WILLIAM SHANKS appeared before

me, the undersigned notary public. After I administered an oath to him, upon his oath, under

penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1746, he said that he has read the Verified

Complaint and that the facts stated in it are within his personal knowledge and are true and

correct.

4!~~5;;t~
REVEREND WILLIAM SHANKS

SWORN TO and SUBSCRIBED before me by Reverend William Shanks on April 13, 2004.

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 32 of 48

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

REVEREND WILLIAM SHANKS, KATHLEEN BENFIELD, REVEREND GRANT STORMS, and UNITED FOR LIFE, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

CIV NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

v.

PARISH OF JEFFERSON, LOUISIANA, JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WILLIAM A. LAZARO, JR., individually and in his official capacity, and OFFICER DANIEL SAMROW, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants.

APPENDIX TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Pursuant to local rules, Plaintiffs submit this Appendix to their Verified Complaint.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of April, 2004.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND LAW CENTER
~Y~iCh~~nls~---
Louisiana State Bar No. 26059 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Southeast Regional Service Center 401 Market Street, Ste. 900 Shreveport, LA 71101 Phone: (318) 459-2239 Facsimile: (318) 222-0458

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 33 of 48
Benjamin W. Bull* Arizona State Bar No. 009940 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND LAW CENTER 15333 N. Pima Road, Suite 165 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone: (480) 444-0020 Genia Coleman-Lee* Louisiana State Bar No. 25372 P.O. Box 17121 Lake Charles, LA 70616 Phone: (337) 491-9900 *Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice to be submitted
Page 2

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 34 of 48 INDEX TO APPENDIX
1. Excerpts of challenged Jefferson Parish Ordinances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 2. Speech event application fonn submitted by Plaintiff, Rev. William Shanks.......... 11 3. Letter from Defendant, William A. Lazaro, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Page 3

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 35 of 48
APPENDIX 1

---

-~~~~~~~-~~~

--

~

NextPage LivePCubalisseh 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 36 of 48 Page 1 of 1
Sec. 6-51. Definitions.
As used In this article, unless otherwise indicated: Amusement attraction means any building or structure around, over, or through which people may move or walk, without the aid of any moving device integral to the building or structure, that provides amusement, pleasure, thrills or excitement. "Amusement attraction" does not include any enterprise principally devoted to the exhibition of products of agriculture, industry, education, science, religion or the arts. Amusement ride means any mechanized device or combination of devices which carries passengers along, around or over a fixed or restricted course for the purpose of giving its passengers amusement, pleasure, thrills or excitement. Certificate of inspection means a certificate issued by the department of inspection and code enforcement, subsequent to an Inspection by the department. Charitable organization means a nonprofit veterans', eleemosynary, benevolent, educational, religious, fraternal or civic and service association or corporation domiciled in this state which has qualified with the Internal Revenue Service for an exemption from federal income tax under Section 501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Department means the department of citizen's service. Fair means an enterprise offering amusement or entertainment to the public in, upon, or by means of amusement attractions or rides. Operator means a person, organization or association or the agent of a person, organization or association which owns or controls or has the duty to control the operation of an amusement or ride. "Operator" does not include a person, organization or association which does not own or control an amusement attraction or ride but which permits or allows the operation of an amusement attraction or ride on the premises of or in the name of the person, organization or association. (Ord. No. 17542, § 1, 7-13-88; Ord. No. 20843, § 1,12-1-99) Secs. 6-52--6-55. Reserved. Editor's note: Ord. No. 20843, §§ 2--5, adopted Dec. 1, 1999, repealed §§ 6-52--6-55, which pertained to inspection of amusement attraction or ride required; notice of violation of amusement attraction standard; and exemptions. See the Code Comparative Table.
http://livepublish.municode.comI1111pext.dll/lnfobase30/111145111861118a/118b?fn=document-frame.ht... 1122/2004

NextP<ige LivePCuablsiesh2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 37 of 48 Page 1 of 1
Sec. 6-56. Permit required.
It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct fairs, exhibitions, shows, circus performances or other public gatherings within the unincorporated areas of the parish without first securing approval of the parish council. (Ord. No. 17542, § 5, 7-13-88)

NextPage LivePublish

Page 1 of 1

Sec. 6-57. Requirements for permit.
No person shall conduct a fair or other public gathering without first showing proof of insurance against liability for injury suffered by persons attending the fair or gathering. In addition, the operator of amusement attractions or rides for a fair must show proof of insurance from an insurance company with an A. M. Best rating of B+ or better in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) insuring the operator against liability for injury suffered by persons riding the amusement attractions or rides. The grounds on which any fair or other public gathering is to be held shall be subject to inspection by the department.
(Ord. No. 17542, § 6, 7-13-88)

NextPage LivePublish

Page 1 of 1

Sec. 6-61. Cash deposit prerequisite to issuance.
(a) Prior to the obtaining of a permit from the parish council to conduct a fair, exhibition show, circus performance or any type of exhibition show, the person desiring to conduct such activity shall first make a cash deposit of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) plus the sum of one cent ($0.01) per square foot of ground occupied by such activity with the department to ensure that all trash, debris and other matter accumulated on the premises and its surroundings where the activity is conducted is removed therefrom within forty-eight (48) hours of the conclusion of the conduct of the activity.
(b) Upon completion of the conduct of the fair, exhibition show, circus performance or any type of exhibition show, the department shall make an inspection of the area and its surroundings wherein the aforesaid activity was conducted and if It is determined that the area and its surroundings have been properly cleaned of all trash, debris and other matter, the deposit required by subsection (a) above shall be refunded to the permittee. If the area and its surroundings have not been properly cleaned within forty-eight (48) hours after written notice has been given to the permittee, the department shall expend whatever funds are necessary from the deposit made by the permittee to have the area and its surroundings cleaned, with the balance, if any, being refunded to the permittee.
(c) The council may exempt from the provisions of this section bona fide churches, schools and charitable organizations.
(Ord. No. 17542, § 10, 7-13-88)
Secs. 6-62--6-64. Reserved.

NextPa:ge LivePuCbalisseh 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 38 of 48 Page 1 of 4
Sec. 20-102. Noise.
(a) Scope. The provisions of this section shall apply to the control of all sound originating within geographical limits of the parish and outside the parish limits, within all territory to which the jurisdiction of the parish extends.
(b) Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following definitions shall apply, provided, however, that all terminology used herein and not defined shall be in conformance with applicable publications of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI):
A-weighted sound pressure level means the sound pressure level as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighting network. The standard notation is DB(A) or dB(A).
Alarm means any fire, burglary, motor vehicle or civil defense alarm, whistle or similar stationary emergency signaling device.
Commercial area means a district composed of certain lands and structures used primarily to provide for the retailing of goods and the furnishing of selected services.
Construction means any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, alteration, demolition or similar action, for or of publiC or private rights-of-way, structures, utilities, or similar property.
Emergency means any occurrence or set of circumstances involving actual or imminent physical trauma or property damage demanding immediate attention.
Emergency vehicle means a motor vehicle belonging to a fire district or volunteer fire company or certified private vehicle belonging to a volunteer fireman, or fire fighting association, partnership or corporation, an ambulance, a motor vehicle belonging to private security agency or a motor vehicle belonging to federal, state, parish or municipal law enforcement agency; provided said vehicles are in use as an emergency vehicle by one authorized to use said vehicle for that purpose.
Emergency work means any work for the purpose of preventing or alleviating the physical trauma or property damage threatened or caused by an emergency.
Holiday means New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Mardi Gras, Good Friday, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, or Christmas Day.
Industrial area means a district intended for light manufacturing, processing, storage and warehousing, wholesaling and distribution.
Land use category means the classification of an area, such as single-family residential, manufactured home, two-family residential, townhouse, multiple-family residential, general office, medical service, business core, neighborhood commercial, general commercial, industrial, and special industrial.
Motor vehicle means a two (2) or more wheeled vehicle, or machine, propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on the public roads and highways in the transportation of passengers or property; or any combination thereof, which is required to be licensed, but does not include any vehicle, locomotive, or car operated exclusively on rail or rails.
Multifamily dwelling means a building designed for or occupied by five (5) or more families.
Noise-sensitive area means an area where a school, hospital, nursing home, church, court, or public library is located.
Permit means an authorization received from the parish's office of carnival and special events or other appropriate permitting agency to conduct a parade, special event, fair, revival, celebration or other group event.
Person means any individual, association, partnership, corporation, and includes any officer, employee, department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
Powered model vehicle means any self-propelled airborne, waterborne, or landborne plane, vessel, or vehicle which is not designed to carry persons, including, but not limited to, any model airplane, boat, car, or rocket.
Public right-of-way means any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, sidewalk, alley or similar place normally accessible to the public which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity.
Public space means any real property or structure thereon owned by a governmental entity and normally accessible to the public, including, but not limited to, parks, and other recreational areas.
Real property line means a line along the surface, and its vertical plane extension, which separates the real property owned, rented, or leased by one (1) person from that owned, rented, or leased by another person, excluding intra-building real property division.
http://livepublish.municode.comlll/lpext.dU/Infobase301l/23ab/24f6/2503?fn=document-frame.htm&f=t... 4/13/2004

NextPage LivePCubalsiseh 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 39 of 48 Page 2 of 4

Residential area means an area composed of certain lands and structures having single-family, two-family, or multifamily residential characteristics.

Sound level means the A-weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter as specified in American National Standards Institute Specification for sound level meters (ANSI.4-1971, as amended).

(c) Excessive noise prohibited generally. No person shall make, continue, or cause to be made or continued any loud unnecessary or excessive noise which unreasonably interferes with the comfort and repose of others within the jurisdiction of the parish.

(d) Enforcement responsibility. The Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office shall be responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this section.

(e) Cooperation of parish departments. All parish departments shall, to the fullest extent consistent with their authority, carry out their programs in such a manner as to further the policy of this section.

(f) Maximum permissible sound limits. It shall be unlawful to make, cause or allow the making of any noise or sound which violates the provisions of this section.

(1) No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source from any location in such a manner as to create a sound level which exceeds the limits set forth in Table 1 for the receiving land use category more than ten (10) percent of -any measurement period, which period shall not be less than ten (10) minutes, when measured at or beyond the property boundary of the land use category from which the sound emanates, provided, however, that in the case of multifamily dwelling land use category, the sound level shall be measured within an adjacent intra-building dwelling.

~~~~(2) For any source of sound, the sound level shall not exceed the maximum permissible sound level limit set forth in Table 1 by fifteen (15) dB(A) for all land use categories.

____~~(3) Sound level measurement shall be made with a sound level meter using the A-weighting scale in accordance with the standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute.

Table 1

Maximum Permissible Sound Levels By Receiving Land Use Category

TABLE INSET:
Land Use Category
Resldenbal, noise-senslbve area, public space Mulbfamlly dwelling CommerCIal, convenbon Industrial

Time
7 00 a m-9 59 Pm. 1000 Pm --6 59 a m 7 00 a m-9 59 Pm 10:00 p.m.-6:59 a.m. 7:00 a.m -9'59 p.m, 1000 P m --6 59 a m At all bmes

Sound Level Limit (d8(A)) 60 55
50 45
65 60
75

'(g) Exemptions. The follOWing are exempt from sound level limits of Table 1: . _.(1) Domestic power tools, lawn movers and agricultural equipment, when operated with a muffler, between the hours of 7:00 a.m, to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
'''-~~(2) Noises resulting from any authorized emergency vehicles when responding to an emergency, ---~(3) Noises made by persons having obtained a permit _.~~(4) Any noise resulting from activities of a temporary duration, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this
section, and which conforms to the conditions and limits stated thereon. -~'---(5) Noises from church bells and chimes.
(6) Noises from construction activity are exempt from Table 1 except that the industrial sound level limit shall apply in all
http://livepublish.municode.comlll/lpext.dll/lnfobase30/1123ab/24f6/2503?fu=document-frame.htm&f=t... 4/13/2004

NextPage LivePCubalsiseh 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 40 of 48
land use categories.

Page 3 of 4

'(7) Collection of garbage, refuse, or recyclables by the parish and/or its contractors.

(h) Specific prohibitions. In addition to the general prohibitions set out above, the following specific acts are declared to be in violation of this section:

(1) Horns, signaling devices. The sounding of any horn or signaling device on any motor vehicle on any street or public 'place in the parish continuously and/or incessantly for a period in excess of sixty (60) seconds, except as a danger warning.

·----(2) Radios, televisions, musical instruments and similar devices.

a. The operating or playing or any radio, musical instrument or similar device which produces or reproduces ------sound on the public right-of-way in such a manner as to be plainly audible to any person other than the operator
of the device.

b. The operating or playing of any radio, television, phonograph, musical instrument or similar device which , ..... -. ~ ,J. - - "'''-produces or reproduces sound in a motor vehicle or public park in a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance
of fifty (50) feet.

c. The operating or playing of any radio, television, phonographs, musical instruments or similar device which - ---produces or reproduces sound in such a manner as to exceed the levels set forth in Table 1 for the land use
category.

(3) Loudspeakers and sound amplifiers. The using or operating of any loudspeaker, loudspeaker system, sound amplifier or other similar device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m on weekdays, and 10:00 pm.m and 10:00 - - -·-a.m. on weekends and holidays, within or adjacent to residential or noise sensitive areas such that the sound therefrom is plainly audible across the real property line of the source; provided, however, that this shall not apply to any public performance, gathering or parade for which a permit has been obtained.

____(4) Street sales. The offering for sale by shouting or outcry within any residential or noise-sensitive area except by permit issued by the parish if the shouting or outcry exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels shown in Table 1

(5) Animals. The owning, possessing, or harboring of any animal which frequently, or for continued duration, howls, barks, squawks, or makes other sounds which create excessive and unnecessary nOise across a residential or commercial real property line or within a noise sensitive area. For the purpose of this section, "barking dog" shall mean a - .dog that barks, bays, cries, howls or makes any other noise continuously and/or incessantly for a period of ten (10) minutes, or barks Intermittently for one-half ( 1/2) hour or more to the disturbance of any person at any time of day or night, regardless of whether the dog is physically situated in or upon private property; provided, however, that the dog shall not be deemed a "barking dog" if, at the time the dog is barking or making any other noise, a person is trespassing or threatening to trespass upon property in or upon which the dog is situated.

(6) Construction and demolition. The operating of any equipment used in construction work within one hundred slxty---'-'- "five (165) feet of any residential or noise-sensitive area between the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and
Saturdays and 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Sundays and holidays, except for emergency work .

. ----(7) Powered model vehicles. The operating of, or permitting the operating of, powered model vehicles:

~a. Between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Sundays and holidays.

b. In such a manner as to exceed the levels set for public space land use, measured at a distance of not closer than one hundred (100) feet from the operator.

. "--'-(8) Emergency signaling devices:

_ _ _a. Except in cases of an emergency, the intentional sounding of any alarm between the hours of 10.00 P m. and 7:00 a.m.

--- -----·-b. The testing of any alarm for a period in excess of sixty (60) seconds at any time.

c. The testing of a complete emergency signaling system, including the signaling device and the personnel -----response to the signaling device, more than once in each calendar month and the sounding of said emergency
signaling system for a period in excess of fifteen (15) minutes.

(I) Motor vehicles. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any motor vehicle, or motorcycle not equipped with a
http://livepublish.municode.com/11/1pext.dll/lnfobase30/1/23ab/24f6/2503 ?fn=document-frame.htm&f=t... 4/13/2004

NextPage LivePCubalisseh 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 41 of 48 Page 4 of 4
muffler in good working order and in constant operation. No person shall remove or render inoperative or cause to be removed or rendered inoperative, any muffler or sound-dissipative device on a motor vehicle or motorcycle other than for the purpose of maintenance, repair or replacement. In addition, subject to the exemptions provided in subsection (g) herein, no person shall operate or play, or permit the operation or playing of, any radio, television, phonograph, stereo, drum, musical instrument, sound amplifier or similar device which produces, reproduces or amplifies sound in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance at a distance of fifty (50) feet from such radio, television, phonograph, stereo, drum, musical instrument, sound amplifier or similar device when it is played or operated in or on a motor vehicle that is on any public right-of-way or in any public space. A person who is convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be punished by a fine not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense, one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second offense and two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for the third and all subsequent offenses. 0) Truck deliveries; loading and unloading. It shall be unlawful to load or unload a delivery truck between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. within three hundred (300) feet of a residential unit, noise-sensitive area, or public space if the sound level limit at the boundary of these areas exceeds the sound level limit set forth in section 20-102(f). It shall also be unlawful to operate a refrigeration unit on any truck within three hundred (300) feet of any residential unit within the parish during said time period. (k) Bulk waste containers. It shall be unlawful to load or unload a bulk waste container (bulk containers normally used With mechanical collection equipment; dumpster) between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. within three hundred (300) feet of a residential, noise-sensitive area, or public space if the sound level limit at the boundary of these areas exceeds the sound level limit set forth in section 20-102(f). (I) Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be punished as set forth in section 1-10 of this Code. (Code 1961, §§ 12-12.1, 12-25; Ord. No. 19170, § 1,9-7-94; Ord. No. 20983, § 1,6-14-00; Ord. No. 21730, § 1, 12-11-02) Cross references: Railroad whistles, horns, etc., § 28-9. Secs. 20-103--20-118. Reserved.
http://livepublish.municode.comlll/lpext.dllllnfobase30/1/23ab/24f6/2503?fn=document-frame.htm&f=t... 4/13/2004

NextPage LivePCubalisseh 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 42 of 48 Page 1 of 1 Sec. 22-121. Definitions.
The following definitions shall govern in the use and interpretation of this article unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Contributions shall mean and include the words alms, food, clothing, money, subscription, property or anything of value by donation or under the guise of a loan. Distribute and distribution shall mean the giving or circulation of any handbill, written advertisement, or publication. The words shall also mean and include the making of any announcement to the public, whether oral or written, concerning an appeal, assemblage, athletic or sports event, bazaar benefit, campaign, contest, dance, drive, entertainment, exhibition, exposition, party, performance, picnic, sale or social gathering, to which the public is invited or requested to make a contribution. Person shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint venture, church, religious sect, religious denomination, school, society, organization, or league, and includes any employee, agent, member, trustee, receiver, or other similar representative thereof. Solicit and solicitation shall mean the selling [of] any item, property, article or anything of value or the request, directly or indirectly, for contributions or money, credit, property, financial assistance, employment, business or anything of value, from the occupant of any vehicle on any street. The words shall also mean and include any method of request or seiling, whether oral or written Streets shall mean all public streets, roads, thoroughfares, highways, bridges, alleys, passageways, rights-of-way, medians, curbs and shoulders of the road. (Ord. No.1 9036, § 1, 4-6-94)
http://IivepubIish.municode.comlll/lpext.dll/lnfobase301l/26aS/273e/2743?fn=document-frame.htm&f=t... 4113/2004

NextPage LivePuCbaJisseh 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 43 of 48 Page 1 of 1 Sec. 22-123. Distribution prohibited.
No person shall stand, sit or remain next to the travelled part of any street, for the purpose of distributing or otherwise circulating any handbill, written advertisements or publication to the drivers or passengers of vehicles using the street. (Ord. No. 19036, § 1, 4-6-94)
http://Jivepublish.municode.comlll/lpext.dU/lnfobase30/1/26a5/273e/274e?fn=document-frame.htm&f=t... 4/13/2004

NextPage LivePuCbalisseh 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Sec. 26-1. Permit required.
Any group may assemble within the parish by obtaining a permit from the parish council. (Code 1961, § 12-51)

Page 44 of 48

Page 1 of 1

http://livepublish.municode.comlllllpext.dll/lnfobase30/1/30 1e/30 1f?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates 4/1/2004

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 45 of 48
APPENDIX 2

. , ' "

::ltl-".lItJCI I':;
e Case 2:04-lc":v11-201057-SJSP V~I\.Io<DVlo:Icr\u'mWe"~nLt I1Q Filed 04/14/2004 JEFfE",ON PARl8H LOUISIANA

Page 46 of 48

~V!NT DAT!~'_/_E.VE..~"I DA.Y _ _ _ _STAltT TIMB_____END TlM~_ _

:2V[l\" ()AT1-,_.'_EVE~'1' DAl'

STARTTL~

£ND TIME_ __

D~TAS FOR B&£R .uofDlOR. .U,COBOL Bi,vEMGI.S ON THE PUMISJtS:__

.

an:. I.'«ST I/IICLlV!; DtL.I"FR'f I>~Tt ..~ PlCI'l~ DAnl"".....-..C ..

1IUIC'1I.......Do'I). BCD gQil

c" AlJDUSS OF&VifllT 3f)ljo R,\djt..Ia.I,~ JAefQ." e.-

lLarOSE. O'I~NT_~ ",(:,."" fr' on ()~ ~e. V ().)aM de c.. ~,. (J n

~~~
(I'II.OIfotlO.,(4L C~At>Y "'_ ""'l~"T JUDIt. oact:i 01' f 01.01) ADD}ttSS

'HO~, _________ ._ _ _ _ _ __ _
_ PHO~"E _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _

ns.vcrCJU. JNCLOSEt) 0]'01 NOU 111"-... 1"11'0 (21 &lDU
snuC1t.U ~I:'ID 0.-. ALL SIDES, uss TB.,,"; '1 n t t

DOCUPS nw>M lHJ:S SUCIAL tvt:oa 'A'lLL CO TO __________,.._--
wru.. l'1IIS l"I~"f aa ort,... 'ro TlU C~ P'UlLlC1 _ n:5___~X ____

1110 _ _ _ _ •_ _

T~UJ;"Aruro.XTAlLO~S).~·O\.1.DYOt.'W~TA.'10nICEJZ(S)UA.Y~I!YU_NO_

L;l HOLD HAR.\fLESS AN}) I!'lD£M~IF1CAnO~ OF JEFfERSO~ PARISH

rJlll ~1v.zMj<.~ .lUW£.~AnVE Un/tell. 4=t L, f (;, I.
Do

J!ell,£lu'

Ac;id

TO SAVE

....'lI.I HmO

HAJ.)4U:SS

ANt)

JM)EWN1FY

t'l{J!

OF PAJUSJ.\'

OF J'E~'FEll$OtJ

4..olD~

m

,,"' Y O£P~TM!NTS At'D/OR m £:\IJPl...O\'nS. n.OM

AND Au.. t.lo\JIl.tTY....~. .ItNY ClAIM. t.OSSES. !)A.""'OIS.

0., ccsu, INC:'~";)IN(j ArrOl.."dIY fEES. surra A~D It;'OOME~ 0" 'tla ACCOm.,"']'''F r,-lNRlES plI.onJtTY

D~"L\OB J.!sutTINO ~ow AC1iYI QtA TO 11« EV t'T.

. "G SIat.ArukI: 01" --------~5 OJlflCl:.!)() [(01'

_____ ~
C",-.rf
.KLO"'nas 1.JN:£~----

u s.o. - tuauc ASoSIC.~T - c,I.PtAlN cn.us 1•.ADAMS OJ (34"'~4)

_ ~r.~»Y ____________....._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

_ nA~, _________________

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 Page 47 of 48
APPENDIX 3

e e Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 1 Filed 04/14/2004 JEFFERSON PARISH LOUISIANA cmZENS' AFFAIRS

Page 48 of 48

AARON F. BROUSSARD
PARISH PI'IESlDesT

January 13, 2004

WILLIAM A. lAZARO. JR. DIRECTOR

.
Rev. Bill Shanks
#7 Pat's Place
~etUrie,~ 70001

Dear Rev. Shanks,

Please be advised that: your application for a Special Event permit to conduct a
rally with live music at 3040 Ridgelake Drive, Metairie, Louisiana is still pending.

In order to obtain the permit, you must furnish this office with either a notarized

affidavit from the owner granting permission to use the prop r a bona fide lease

agreement from the O'WIleI" of the property at 3040 Ridge

've, Metairie, Louisiana.

If you have any questions, pleas

WA1Jccm
cc Louis Gruntz, Parish Attorney Carol Champagne
Faxed cc: Chief John Thevenot Capt. Danny Samrow

 </s> Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 26 Filed 02/01/2005 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

r,-:!~~."U).TSE.RDNISOFTIfLRSETICCRTJIJC.CTOnUFRTL~
~; l005 FEB - I I A ro: 53
• ULORETTA G. WHYTE
CLERK

REVEREND WILLIAM SHANKS, ET AL.

*

CIVIL ACTION No. 04-1057

*

Plaintiffs

*

SECTION "R"

*

VERSUS

*

JUDGE VANCE

*

PARISH OF JEFFERSON, LOUISIANA,

*

MAGISTRATE NO. 4

ETAL.

*

*

MAGISTRATE ROBY

Defendants

*

*****************************

JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel come plaintiffs, United for Life, Inc.,

Reverend William Shanks, Kathleen Benfield, and Reverend Grant Storms, and defendants, William

Lazaro, Jr. and The Parish of Jefferson, who advise this Court that they have concluded their

settlement and that a judgment dismissing the claims asserted by plaintiffs in this lawsuit with

prejudice is appropriate.

'. ,~. :':..' .

. "

~

"

DATE OF ENTRY

T.'I .'

.. FEB...~ A .20PSe •.

• : -.'1 J ~ -,. '.• ,' ! -

. \•

-
:~ " ,,. .......; 1.:'; ,~'

: .~~'. .;\' .

'f •

• ~ ~ .. _' .: r .,

_Fee_ _ _ __

7 ---v-!'~rocess~

_Ct _

?ktd 'f
RmDep Doc. No.

A;;.2=b_..

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 26 Filed 02/01/2005 Page 2 of 3

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, United for Life, Inc., Reverend William Shanks, Kathleen

Benfield, and Reverend Grant Storms, and defendants, William Lazaro, Jr. and The Parish of

Jefferson, pray that this Court grant their motion dismissing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

Respectfully Submitted:
f.t~1~azSON
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND LAW CENTER Southeast Regional Service Center Shreveport, LA 71101 Telephone: (318) 459-2239 Facsimile: (318) 222-0458 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Respectfully Submitted:
~~
THO AS P. ANZELMO (#2533) KYLE P. KIRSCH (#26363) ANDRE J. LAGARDE (#28649) McCRANIE, SISTRUNK, ANZELMO, HARDY,MAXWELL & MCDANIEL 3445 N. Causeway Blvd.lSuite 800 Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Telephone: (504) 831-0946 Facsimile: (504) 831-2492

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been served upon all counsel of record by placing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and properly addressed, this
J>!5[day of_J_--=-~----'-~L--l!:::J~=--=-~--/-P'------'_ _ _' 2005. 7

· .

Case 2:04-cv-01057-SSV Document 26 Filed 02/01/2005 Page 3 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

REVEREND WILLIAM SHANKS, ET AL. *

*

Plaintiffs

*

*

VERSUS

*

*

PARISH OF JEFFERSON, LOUISIANA,

*

ETAL.

*

*

Defendants

*

*****************************

JUDGMENT

CIVIL ACTION No. 04-1057 SECTION "R" JUDGE VANCE MAGISTRATE NO. 4 MAGISTRATE ROBY

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the claims ofplaintiffs,

United for Life, Inc., Reverend William Shanks, Kathleen Benfield, and Reverend Grant Storms, in

the captioned matter are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

thiS~ay ~, New Orleans, Louisiana,

of

,2005.

~1/~
UNITEDSTAiES DISTRICT JUDGE

 </s> Shanks v. Parish of Jefferson, La., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

2004 WL 1737904 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
Reverend William SHANKS v.
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, LOUISIANA, et al.
No. Civ.A. 04–1057. | July 30, 2004.
Attorneys and Law Firms
J. Michael Johnson, Shreveport, LA, Genia Coleman Lee, Genia Coleman Lee, Attorney at Law, Lake Charles, LA, for Plaintiffs.
Thomas P. Anzelmo, Kyle P. Kirsch, Andre Jude Lagarde, McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Maxwell & McDaniel, Daniel Rault Martiny, Franz L. Zibilich, Martiny & Associates, Metairie, LA, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER AND REASONS
VANCE, J.
*1 Before the Court is defendant William Lazaro’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Reverend William Shanks, Kathleen Benfield, and Reverend Grant Storms are pro-life advocates and members of plaintiff United for Life, Inc., a non-profit corporation. (R. Doc. 1, Verified Complaint, ¶¶ 17, 64, 66.) Plaintiffs sue Jefferson Parish, Jefferson Parish Sheriff Harry Lee, Jefferson Parish Police Officer Daniel Samrow, and William Lazaro, Jefferson Parish Director of Citizen Affairs, under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 for various violations of their constitutional rights in connection with the enforcement of certain Jefferson Parish ordinances. Plaintiffs sue Lazaro in both his official and his individual capacities. Lazaro now moves under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the suit against him in his official capacity. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD In a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir.1996); American Waste & Pollution Control Co. v. Browning–Ferris, Inc., 949 F.2d 1384, 1386 (5th Cir.1991). The Court must resolve doubts as to the sufficiency of the claim in plaintiff’s favor. Vulcan Materials Company v. City of Tehuacana, 238 F.3d 382, 387 (5th Cir.2001). Dismissal is warranted if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of her claim that would entitle her to relief. Id.; Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 514 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir.1994)).
III. DISCUSSION Lazaro moves to dismiss the claims against him in his official capacity because they are duplicitive of plaintiffs’ claims against Jefferson Parish. In Romero v. Becken, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a dismissal of Section 1983 claims against city officers in their official capacities because the plaintiff also asserted the same claims against the city. 256 F.3d 349, 355 (5th Cir.2001). See also McCall v. Peters, 2001 WL 1082417 at *8 (N.D.Tx. Aug.28, 2001) (affirming dismissal of Section 1983 claims against city officials in their official capacities because they duplicated the claims against the city); cf. Sims v. Jefferson Downs Racing Ass’n, 778 F.2d 1068, 1081 (5th Cir.1985) (holding that a plaintiff does not have a cause of action against both a corporation and its officer in his official capacity). The Court reasoned that the claims against the city officers in their official capacities duplicate the claims against the city. Romero, 256 F.3d at 355. This follows because liability for the official’s actions in his official capacity runs against the city. See Sims, 778 F.2d at 1081 (using this reasoning in the context of a corporation and its officers). Thus, to hold both the city and its officers liable for the same claims would make the city liable twice for the same claims. Romero’s holding applies to plaintiffs’ official capacity claims against Lazaro, since plaintiffs assert the same Section 1983 claims against Jefferson Parish that they assert against Lazaro. Thus, plaintiffs’ claims against Lazaro in his official capacity must be dismissed.
III. CONCLUSION *2 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Lazaro’s motion to dismiss claims against him in his official capacity.
1

Shanks v. Parish of Jefferson, La., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
	
  
2

 </s> ADF: Jefferson Parish Council announces emergency changes to ordinances used to punis... Page 1 of 1

Jefferson Parish Council announces emergency changes to ordinances used to punish pro-lifers
ADF lawsuit motivates council to acknowledge unconstitutional ordinances just days before court hearing Friday, June 11, 2004, 9:34 AM (MST) ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

JEFFERSON PARISH, LA — Just two days before a federal court hearing in which Jefferson Parish ordinances governing noise and public gatherings would be challenged, the council called on a rarely used emergency procedure to approve changes to the ordinances. Parish officials used the ordinances earlier this year to harass speakers at a pro-life event.

Related News
Lawsuit challenges Jefferson Parish speech ordinances

"We asked them to make these changes months ago, but the council’s negative response at the time left our clients no choice but to file a lawsuit," said Michael Johnson, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund based in Shreveport, Louisiana. "Although the council now recognizes that the existing ordinances are blatantly unconstitutional, our clients suffered discrimination and the court must remedy that."

One of the ordinances used to squelch pro-life speech in Jefferson Parish is known as the "circus ordinance." ADF filed Shanks v. Jefferson Parish on April 14. The plaintiffs had asked the court to stop parish officials from enforcing the unconstitutional ordinances.

Although the council may have amended its ordinances, the case will go forward in the coming weeks because of the harm suffered by the Rev. Bill Shanks and other pro-lifers who tried to speak out. "Our first choice is to solve problems without litigation," Johnson said, "but in cases like this one, the pro-life leaders need legal representation and we are glad to help."

ADF is a legal alliance of more than 700 attorneys defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
www.telladf.org

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/general/Print.aspx?cid=2749

8/3/2005

 </s> ADF: No more discrimination against Louisiana pro-lifers - Alliance Defense Fund - Def... Page 1 of 1

No more discrimination against Louisiana pro-lifers
Jefferson Parish officials settle out of court in light of ADF lawsuit Thursday, January 27, 2005, 8:52 AM (MST) ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

GRETNA, La.—The Jefferson Parish Council has agreed to a settlement instead of going to court to defend their actions in

Related News

interfering with the free speech rights of organizers of a pro-life

Jefferson Parish Council announces

march and memorial service.

emergency changes to ordinances

used to punish pro-lifers

“The local ordinances that the parish was using to keep the

organizers of a somber rally memorializing the 1973 Roe v. Wade

decision were clearly vague and unconstitutional,” said Mike Johnson, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney

based in Shreveport. “The council has done the right thing with this settlement. We wish they would have

acted when we first brought this matter to their attention, but better late than never.”

In January of last year, parish officials applied the local “circus ordinance” to impede Rev. Bill Shanks and friends’ annual gathering on public property. Sheriff’s deputies were instructed to prevent event organizers from using low volume amplification equipment, using a small “soapbox” stage, and from playing religious songs to a peaceable crowd of nearly 300.

Johnson had previously sent a letter to the parish demanding that the First Amendment rights of these citizens be respected. When the parish refused to comply, Johnson and other ADF attorneys filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans. In response, the council made emergency changes in June 2004 to its ordinances regulating speech.

“No longer will obscure, unconstitutional ordinances be used to impede a pro-life group’s free speech rights on public property in Jefferson Parish,” said Johnson. “ADF is glad to have been a part of ensuring that such rights will be protected as the founders of this country intended.”

ADF is America’s largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

www.telladf.org

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/general/Print.aspx?cid=3307

8/3/2005

 </s> LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111522820555112-L_3...

CLOSED, MAG-4
U. S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-01057-SSV

Shanks, et al v. Jefferson Parish, et al Assigned to: Judge Sarah S. Vance Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff William Shanks Reverend
Plaintiff Kathleen Benfield
Plaintiff Grant Storms Reverend

Date Filed: 04/14/2004 Date Terminated: 12/15/2004 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by J. Michael Johnson Alliance Defense Fund 401 Market St. Suite 900 Shreveport, LA 71101 318-459-2239 Email: mjohnson@telladf.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Genia Coleman Lee Genia Coleman Lee, Attorney at Law P. O. Box 17121 1125 Enterprise Blvd. Lake Charles, LA 70616 337-491-9900 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J. Michael Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Genia Coleman Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J. Michael Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Genia Coleman Lee

1 of 6

7/2/2007 3:34 PM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report
Plaintiff United for Life Inc
V. Defendant Jefferson Parish Louisiana
Defendant Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office TERMINATED: 05/04/2004
2 of 6

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111522820555112-L_3...
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J. Michael Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Genia Coleman Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas P. Anzelmo McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Maxwell & McDaniel 3445 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 800 Metairie, LA 70002 (504) 831-0946 Email: Tanzelmo@mcsalaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andre Jude Lagarde McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Maxwell & McDaniel 3445 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 800 Metairie, LA 70002 (504) 831-0946 Email: ajl@mcsalaw.com
Kyle P. Kirsch McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Maxwell & McDaniel 3445 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 800 Metairie, LA 70002 (504) 831-0946 Email: kkirsch@mcsalaw.com
7/2/2007 3:34 PM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111522820555112-L_3...

Defendant William A Lazaro, Jr individually & in his official capacity
Defendant Daniel Samrow Officer, individually & in his official capacity
Defendant Harry Lee incorrectly referred to as the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office

represented by Thomas P. Anzelmo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andre Jude Lagarde (See above for address)
Kyle P. Kirsch (See above for address)
represented by Daniel Rault Martiny Martiny & Associates 131 Airline Hwy. Suite 201 Metairie, LA 70001 (504) 834-7676 Email: dmartiny@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Franz L. Zibilich City Attorney's Office City Hall 1300 Perdido St. Room 5E01 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-658-9800 Email: fzibilich@bellsouth.net
represented by Daniel Rault Martiny (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Franz L. Zibilich (See above for address)

Date Filed
04/14/2004 04/14/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; 4 summons(es) issued (lg) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
Payment of filing fee by plaintiff William Shanks, plaintiff Kathleen Benfield, plaintiff Grant Storms, plaintiff United for Life Inc in amount of $ 150.00 (lg) (Entered: 04/15/2004)

3 of 6

7/2/2007 3:34 PM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111522820555112-L_3...

05/04/2004 05/04/2004 05/19/2004 05/19/2004 05/20/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/25/2004
06/01/2004 06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/10/2004 06/14/2004

(Utility Event) Substituting party(s): terminating Jeff Parish Sheriffs, adding Harry Lee (bc) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
2 Motion by defendant Harry Lee and ORDER extending time to answer pla's complaint an additional 20 days by Judge Sarah S. Vance Date Signed: 5/11/04 (bc) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
3 MOTION by plaintiff William Shanks, plaintiff Kathleen Benfield, plaintiff Grant Storms, plaintiff United for Life Inc for preliminary injunction to be heard before Judge at 2:00 6/10/04 (bc) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
4 MINUTE ENTRY ( 5/19/04 ) ORDERED that the Court will hold a preliminary injunction [3-1] hrg at 2:00 6/10/04; opp due 6/1/04; any reply by plas to dfts' opp due 6/4/04 at noon w/a copy brought to chambers by Judge Sarah S. Vance (bc) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
7 Motion by defendant Daniel Samrow and ORDER extending time to answer pla's complaint for 20 days by Judge Sarah S. Vance Date Signed: 5/26/04 (bc) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
5 Motion by defendant Jefferson Parish, defendant William A Lazaro Jr to cont hrg on preliminary injunction and ORDERED that [3-1] a Status Conf by phone is sched for 10:00 6/11/04 to select a new date for the hrg on the preliminary injunction by Judge Sarah S. Vance (bc) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
17 Motion by plaintiff and ORDER for attorney Genia Coleman Lee to appear pro hac vice by Judge Sarah S. Vance Date Signed: 5/26/04 (dmg) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
6 MINUTE ENTRY ( 5/25/04 ) ORDERED that the status conf by phone set for 6/11/04 is cancelled; FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will instead hold a preliminary injunction [3-1] hrg at 10:00 6/11/04; the briefing sched established in this Court's M.E. dated 5/19/04 remains unaffected by Judge Sarah S. Vance (bc) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
8 Memo in opposition by defendant Jefferson Parish, defendant William A Lazaro Jr to motion for preliminary injunction [3-1] filed by plaintiff William Shanks, plaintiff Kathleen Benfield, plaintiff Grant Storms, plaintiff United for Life Inc (bc) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
9 Reply by plaintiffs to dfts Jefferson Parish, William Lazaro's memo in opp to plas' motion for preliminary injunction [3-1] (lg) Modified on 06/07/2004 (Entered: 06/07/2004)
10 Statement of Corporate Disclosure filed by plaintiff William Shanks, plaintiff Kathleen Benfield, plaintiff Grant Storms, plaintiff United for Life Inc (bc) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
11 Motion by defendant Jefferson Parish, defendant William A Lazaro Jr and ORDER for leave to file suppl memo in opp to plas' mtn for prelim injunction by Judge Sarah S. Vance Date Signed: 6/14/04 (bc) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
12 Supplemental memorandum by defendant Jefferson Parish, defendant William A Lazaro Jr in opp to plas' [3-1] motion for preliminary injunction (bc) (Entered: 06/14/2004)

4 of 6

7/2/2007 3:34 PM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111522820555112-L_3...

06/14/2004 06/18/2004
06/21/2004 06/21/2004 07/30/2004
09/02/2004 09/07/2004 09/08/2004 09/23/2004 10/21/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004 02/01/2005

13 MINUTE ENTRY ( 6/10/04 ) ORDERED that the preliminary injunction [3-1] hrg is cont to 10:00 6/25/04; plas' resp to the new ordinances is due 6/17/04; any reply by dfts is due 6/22/04 by Judge Sarah S. Vance (bc) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
16 Motion by plaintiffs and ORDERED that their motion for preliminary injunction [3-1] be withdrawn & the preliminary injunction hrg set for 6/25/04 be passed w/out date; further ordered that plas' be allowed to proceed w/their remaining claims on the merits of this case & plas' right to bring preliminary injunction mtn at a later date is reserved by Judge Sarah S. Vance Date Signed: 6/25/04 (bc) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
14 MOTION by defendant William A Lazaro Jr, defendant Jefferson Parish to dismiss plas' claims against William Lazaro, Jr. in his official capacity to be heard before Judge at 10:00 7/7/04 (bc) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
15 ANSWER by defendant Jefferson Parish, defendant William A Lazaro Jr to complaint by plaintiff [1-1]; jury demand (bc) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
18 ORDER AND REASONS the Court Grants dfts William A Lazaro Jr, and Jefferson Parish's motion to dismiss plas' claims against William Lazaro, Jr. in his official capacity [14-1] by Judge Sarah S. Vance Date Signed: 7/29/04 (ca) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
19 NOTICE/ORDER that a preliminary conference is scheduled by telephone before courtroom deputy at 10:15 9/16/04 by Clerk (bc) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
20 NOTICE/ORDER that the preliminary conference scheduled by telephone before courtroom deputy for 9/16/04 is CONT & RESET for 11:15 9/23/04 by Clerk (bc) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
21 ANSWER by defendant Daniel Samrow to 1st amd complaint by plaintiffs (bc) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
22 MINUTE ENTRY ( 9/23/04): Preliminary Conference held; amendments due 10/25/04 ; pretrial conf set 2:00 3/17/05 ; jury trial set 8:30 3/28/05 ; by Clerk for Judge Sarah S. Vance (bc) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
23 MINUTE ENTRY ( 10/19/04 ): a settlement conference is scheduled before magistrate at 2:00 2/23/05 ; settlement letters due at least 2 days bfr conf by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (bc) (Entered: 10/21/2004)
24 MINUTE ENTRY (12/14/04) negotiations were successful and a settlement has been reached, therefore, the Settlement conference set for 2/23/05 is cancelled by Magistrate Judge Karen W. Roby (dmg) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
25 60-DAY ORDER OF DISMISSAL: to dismiss case w/o costs & w/o prej by Judge Sarah S. Vance (CASE CLOSED) (dmg) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
26 Joint Motion by plaintiffs & defendants and ORDER dismissing this matter w/prej by Judge Sarah S. Vance Date Signed: 2/3/05 (bc) (Entered: 02/04/2005)

PACER Service Center

5 of 6

7/2/2007 3:34 PM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111522820555112-L_3...

Transaction Receipt

07/02/2007 15:37:00

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

eeoc 2:04-cv-01057-SSV 0.24

6 of 6

7/2/2007 3:34 PM


[CONTENT] April 14, 2004 | First Amendment | the U.S. District Court | the Eastern District | New Orleans | Jefferson Parish | Parish | one ||| the Alliance Defense Fund | more than 700 |||  ||| 2004 | Roe v. Wade ||| the parish council [SUMMARY] On April 14, 2004, individuals and an advocacy organization filed this First Amendment case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New Orleans against Jefferson Parish claiming the Parish had unfairly applied parish ordinances (including one known as "the circus ordinance") to squelch pro-life speech. the plaintiffs were represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, "an alliance of more than 700 attorneys defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation." (ADF Press Release)

The plaintiffs claimed they were unlawfully prohibited from using voice amplification equipment, a stage, and from playing religious songs in their 2004 protest against the Roe v. Wade decision. 

Before a hearing could be held on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the parish council used an emergency procedure to approve changes to the ordinances and the case was dismissed.