Opinion
Civil Action 23-2131-KHV
07-10-2023
MICHAEL J. HOYT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FORT SCOTT, KANSAS, and the following individually and in their official capacity CITY COMMISSIONERS current and formerly Seated 2/19, DAVE MARTIN former City Manager, DAVE BRUNER former Fire Chief, SUSAN BANCROFT former Finance Director, RHONDA DUNN former Finance Director, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On February 21, 2023, in the District Court of Bourbon County, Kansas, plaintiff filed suit against the City of Fort Scott, Kansas, current and former City Commissioners, and various former City officials, alleging violations of his rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1343. On March 24, 2023, the City removed the case to this Court. On June 6, 2023, the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the City of Fort Scott for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See Memorandum And Order And Order To Show Cause (Doc. #7). The Court also ordered that on or before June 16, 2023, plaintiff show good cause in writing why his claims against the current and former City Commissioners, Dave Martin, Dave Bruner, Susan Bancroft and Rhonda Dunn should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See id.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #8) filed June 16, 2023, which the Court also construes as plaintiff's response to the order to show cause.
Plaintiff alleges that after citizens filed a protest petition objecting to the use of general obligation bonds to purchase two fire trucks, defendants violated the First Amendment rights of plaintiff and other citizens by failing to hold an election related to the bond issue. See Complaint Seeking Relief (Doc. #1-1) filed March 24, 2023. Plaintiff has not alleged that he signed the protest petition or that the City actually issued general obligation bonds to buy the fire trucks. See id. In plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, he argues that in an effort to ignore the protest petition, defendants devised a scheme to use other financing to buy the fire trucks. Plaintiff does not explain how such conduct states a claim for a violation of his rights under the First Amendment. Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 n.5 (1984) (party invoking First Amendment's protections must demonstrate how they apply). For this reason and for substantially the reasons stated in the Memorandum In Support Of Defendant's Motion To Dismiss (Doc. #6) filed March 31, 2023, the Court dismisses plaintiff's claims against the current and former City Commissioners, Dave Martin, Dave Bruner, Susan Bancroft and Rhonda Dunn for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Court overrules plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as moot.
Indeed, it appears that the protest petition achieved its desired result-the City did not issue general obligation bonds to buy the fire trucks. Plaintiff does not allege that the petition opposed other methods of financing to buy them.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's claims against the current and former City Commissioners, Dave Martin, Dave Bruner, Susan Bancroft and Rhonda Dunn are dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #8) filed June 16, 2023 is OVERRULED.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of all defendants.