Opinion
1:20-CV-0646
04-12-2023
STEPHEN GARISTO, Plaintiff v. CURT TOPPER, in his official Capacity as Secretary of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services, JOSEPH M. JACOB, in his official Capacity as Superintendent of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Police and Safety, and RICHARD SCHUR, individually, and in his official capacity as Sergeant with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Police and Safety, Defendants.
ORDER
Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge
AND NOW, THIS12 Th DAY OF APRIL 2023, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27), Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31), and all relevant documents, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
2. Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs First Amendment Freedom of Speech claim (see Doc. 1 ¶¶ 111-114) and DENIED as to Plaintiffs Due Process claim (see Doc. 1 ¶¶ 115-117).
3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
4. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Due Process claim and DENIED as to Plaintiffs First Amendment claim.
5. Plaintiff is awarded nominal damages of $1.00 based on the violation of his First Amendment rights.
6. Plaintiff is awarded the following injunctive relief:
a. Defendants shall not prevent Plaintiff or other speakers engaged in protected speech from protesting on the perimeter sidewalk and grassy curtilage of the Grove at the annual Pride Festival, or on comparable perimeter areas of the Festival if it is not held at the Grove unless and until
• Plaintiffs conduct or that of other speakers engaged in protected speech disrupts or interferes with the Festival in a legally significant manner as recognized in the Third Circuit, or
• other significant governmental interests justify moving Plaintiff or other speakers engaged in protected speech from those areas or otherwise restricting such speech in a content-neutral manner;
b. Under no circumstances shall Defendants' enforcement of Festival organizers' wishes qualify as a content-neutral basis for restricting Plaintiffs speech or that of other speakers engaged in protected speech.
7. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff on Plaintiffs First Amendment Freedom of Speech claim.
8. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs Due Process claim.
9. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.