OSU STUDENTS ALLIANCE v. Ray

Citations: 692 F. Supp. 2d 1278; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15509; 2010 WL 654407Docket: Civ. 09-6269-AA

Court: District Court, D. Oregon; February 22, 2010; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs, Oregon State University Student Alliance (OSUSA) and William Rogers, filed an action against several OSU administrators for injunctive and declaratory relief, along with damages, claiming that a policy regulating newspaper bin locations violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The defendants, Ed Ray, Mark McCambridge, Larry Roper, and Vincent Martorello, responded with a motion to dismiss and an alternative motion for summary judgment regarding the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. The court, led by Chief Judge Aiken, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the injunctive and prospective declaratory claims and granted the motion to dismiss on all other claims.

The case arose from the removal of OSUSA's newspaper bins, which were used to distribute their publication, The Liberty. The bins, secured against theft, were removed by OSU Facilities Services staff due to a 2006 unwritten policy that restricted bin placement on campus. Plaintiffs were informed that the bins were in unauthorized locations and that designated spots existed for them. Upon retrieval from storage, plaintiffs found one bin damaged and approximately 150 copies of The Liberty ruined. When plaintiffs raised concerns with President Ed Ray, they were referred to Martorello, who justified the policy as a means to manage off-campus newspapers and maintain campus cleanliness, arguing that chained bins obstructed maintenance work and violated ADA requirements.

Defendant Martorello offered to repair a damaged newspaper bin at the Facilities shop, which has since been completed. Plaintiffs communicated with Martorello regarding The Liberty, asserting it is a student newspaper, unlike the officially funded OSU newspaper, The Daily Barometer. Martorello distinguished between the two, and OSU Vice President McCambridge explained that The Liberty lacks ASOSU funding, resulting in less administrative communication and coordination regarding bin distribution. The plaintiffs discovered off-campus bins improperly located and noted The Daily Barometer's bin was secured to an OSU fixture. They requested the written policy on bin locations. An attorney for the University clarified that OSU policy on grounds and facilities, including newspaper bin placement, is comprehensive under Oregon law and does not necessitate a written policy. Despite arguing their status as a student publication and registering as an official student organization in 2009, plaintiffs initiated legal action after unsuccessful challenges to OSU's policy. Subsequently, OSU revised its bin location policy, now documented, eliminating the distinction between student and off-campus publications and increasing bin placement options for plaintiffs.

The document also outlines legal standards for motions to dismiss and for summary judgment under federal rules. For a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must present sufficient factual allegations to establish a plausible claim for relief. The court must differentiate between factual allegations and legal conclusions, assuming the truth of well-pleaded facts. For summary judgment under Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c), the moving party must show no genuine issue of material fact exists and must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with all inferences viewed favorably for the nonmoving party. Plaintiffs seek both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent defendants from enforcing alleged discriminatory policies.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent defendants from restricting their newspaper bins to the Memorial Union area and request a declaration that the defendants' policies are unconstitutional. Defendants move to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims are moot due to a new bin location policy that no longer differentiates between on-campus and off-campus newspapers. Defendants provide evidence, including affidavits, to support their new policy. 

A claim is considered moot if the issues are no longer live, the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome, or there is no current controversy. A defendant's voluntary cessation of improper conduct can render a claim moot, provided there is no reasonable expectation of returning to that conduct. Ninth Circuit precedent indicates that a change in policy by a government entity typically makes a claim moot if the new policy addresses the constitutional issues of the previous one. 

In this case, the new policy allows for broader placement of bins and applies uniformly to all publications, thus resolving the alleged discrimination of the previous policy. Plaintiffs argue that the defendants' defense of the former policy's constitutionality suggests a risk of reverting to it, citing a previous case. However, the defendants only affirm the legality of the former policy without asserting its necessity, and Ninth Circuit rulings clarify that defending a past policy does not indicate intent to reinstate it. 

Defendants have shown their intention to adhere to the new policy, leading to the conclusion that the court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as they are moot.

Summary judgment is granted on the plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' request for retrospective declaratory relief concerning the defendants' past actions is denied, as such relief is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which prevents federal courts from issuing declaratory judgments against state officials in the absence of ongoing harm. Since the defendants have ceased the conduct alleged as unconstitutional, the claim for retrospective relief is dismissed. 

Regarding damages, plaintiffs seek compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages against individual defendants for violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Although the new bin location policy renders prior claims moot, it does not affect the damages claims. However, plaintiffs fail to provide adequate evidence linking the individual defendants’ actions to their alleged economic injuries or constitutional violations. The only economic injury mentioned is the damage to 150 copies of The Liberty, but there is no allegation that individual defendants were involved in the removal or mishandling of the bins. Consequently, claims for compensatory and nominal damages are dismissed. Furthermore, the plaintiffs do not present sufficient factual basis to support claims for punitive damages, as their allegations of viewpoint discrimination lack factual backing. Therefore, all claims for damages are dismissed.

A claim of viewpoint discrimination requires factual evidence that the government suppressed speech based on a plaintiff's ideology or perspective. In Moss v. Secret Service, the bald allegation of impermissible motive was deemed conclusory and insufficient for an assumption of truth. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that individual defendants acted with the intent to suppress their viewpoint, particularly when comparing their publication, The Liberty, to The Daily Barometer. Many facts, including The Liberty's private funding, undermined the argument that the two were similarly situated. Consequently, claims of disparate treatment could not stand. Additionally, the discovery of improperly located off-campus newspaper bins did not support allegations of viewpoint discrimination, as no individual defendants were implicated in their removal. The plaintiffs' claims for damages due to viewpoint discrimination and violations of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment were dismissed. Claims of due process violations were also dismissed, as the individual defendants were not involved in the removal of the newspaper bins and there were no facts linking them to any alleged lack of notice. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on claims for injunctive and prospective declaratory relief and dismissed all remaining claims for relief, including retrospective declaratory relief and damages. The request for oral argument was denied, and the case was dismissed with all pending motions deemed moot.