January 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 29

the pavilion's utilities, Watkins
was standing by his car when he
was approached by Sullivan, a
park employee. Sullivan asked
Watkins a question about his car.
Watkins turned his back to Sullivan
and continued moving his
belongings from the pavilion to
his car, all the while singing the
anti-gay song.
According to Watkins, Sullivan
became angry when she heard the
lyrics of Watkins's song. Sullivan
then purportedly told Watkins she
disliked the song, and she did not
want Watkins to return to the park.
In addition, Sullivan told Watkins
she was calling the police.
A police officer of the City of
Fort Lauderdale Police Department
responded to Sullivan's call.
When the officer arrived, Sullivan
told the officer that Watkins had
violated park rules by using a pair
of pliers to turn on the pavilion's
water pipe and by plugging in an
electrical cooking device without
a permit. At Sullivan's request,
the officer issued Watkins a trespass
warning,
explaining
Watkins would be arrested
that
for
trespassing if he remained on the
premises. Watkins left the park
without incident.
Section 1983 Claims
Watkins
subsequently
brought
a Section 1983 action in federal
court against Sullivan in her individual
capacity. In his complaint,
Watkins
asserted
the
following
three claims:
(a) Sullivan violated his First
Amendment rights by issuing a
trespass warning against Watkins
because she did not like the song he
was singing (Count 1); (b) Sullivan
deprived Watkins of his right
to patronize the park by fabricating
a false reason for issuing a trespass
warning (Count 2); and (c)
Sullivan violated Watkins's right
to challenge the trespass warning
by not informing him about the
appeal process (Count 3).
The federal district court granted
and denied in part Sullivan's motion
to dismiss. The district court
concluded that Watkins had stated
a claim for First Amendment
retaliation in Count 1 and allowed
that claim to proceed. The district
court, however, dismissed Count 2
as duplicative of Count 1 and dismissed
Count 3 for failure to state
a claim.
Following discovery, Sullivan
moved for summary judgment on
Count 1. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of Sullivan,
concluding Sullivan was entitled
to qualified immunity. Watkins
appealed.
Summary Judgment
Review
In reviewing the
Count 1. Watkins maintained that
Count 2 asserted a separate " liberty
interest/due process violation, "
not a claim under the First Amendment.
Watkins
in Count 1 had claimed
Sullivan violated his First Amendment
rights and deprived Watkins
of his right to patronize the park
when Sullivan issued an indefinite
trespass warning because she did
not like the song Watkins was singing.
On the other hand, in Count 2,
Watkins claimed a separate liberty
interest when Sullivan deprived
him of his right to patronize the
park. In so doing, Watkins alleged
that Sullivan had " fabricated a false
claim against Watkins to hide the
true reasons she was trespassing
Watkins from the park, which was
because of the song Watkins was
singing. "
district court's
grant of summary judgment in favor
of Defendant Sullivan, the federal
appeals court would view the
complaint and all of the pretrial evidence
in a light most favorable to
Plaintiff Watkins. Summary judgment,
effectively
dismissing
the
lawsuit, would only be appropriate
if all of the pretrial evidence left no
doubt Watkins had failed to allege
sufficient facts to provide a legal
basis for his Section 1983 claims to
proceed to trial.
Duplicative Claims
On appeal, Watkins challenged the
district court's dismissal of Count 2
as duplicative of the First Amendment
retaliation claim asserted in
In the opinion of the federal appeals
court, " the district court committed
no error in dismissing Count
2 as impermissibly duplicative. " In
reaching this conclusion, the federal
appeals court determined the district
court had " construed reasonably
Count 2 as duplicative of the
First Amendment retaliation claim
asserted in Count 1. " Although
" phrased slightly differently, " the
appeals court found both Counts 1
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | J ANUAR Y 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
29
Watkins in Count 1 had claimed
Sullivan violated his First
Amendment rights and deprived
Watkins of his right to patronize
the park when Sullivan issued
an indefinite trespass warning
because she did not like the
song Watkins was singing.
January 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of January 2023 - Parks & Recreation
