Reza v. Pearce, No. 13-15154 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce violated his constitutional rights when he ordered plaintiff removed, and barred, from the Arizona Senate building. The district court granted summary judgment for the Senator. The court concluded that it was error for the district court to grant summary judgment to Senator
Pearce on the ground that plaintiff had not shown a First Amendment violation. In this case, the Senate Building is a limited public forum, and Senator Pearce’s restrictions on plaintiff, which attempted to preserve the ability of the Senate to hold uninterrupted legislative hearings, were viewpoint neutral. The court found several disputed issues of material fact that affect the court's determination of whether Senator Pearce violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. However, when the court resolved factual disputes in favor of plaintiff’s version of events, as required on a motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that Senator Pearce’s alleged conduct violated the circuit’s clearly established First Amendment law. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Senator and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's rulings regarding Officers Trapp and Burton, and its protective order.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Arizona State Senator Pearce and affirmed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of claims against police officers in plaintiff’s action alleging that: (1) Senator Pearce violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights when he ordered plaintiff removed, and barred, from the Arizona Senate building; and (2) police officers violated plaintiff’s rights when they prevented plaintiff from entering the Senate building and ultimately arresting him. The panel first held that the Senate building was a limited public forum. The panel determined that although Senator Pearce’s restrictions on plaintiff, which attempted to preserve the ability of the Senate to hold uninterrupted legislative hearings, were viewpoint neutral, there were material issues of disputed fact concerning whether plaintiff actually disrupted the proceedings, and whether Senator Pearce had legitimate concerns that, if plaintiff were allowed into the Senate building in the future, he would interrupt legislative debate. The panel concluded that Senator Pearce violated plaintiff’s clearly established First Amendment rights and that the district court erred by granting him qualified immunity on summary judgment. The panel remanded for further proceedings. REZA V. PEARCE 3 The panel held that the district court did not err in granting the police officers’ motion to dismiss the claims against them on qualified immunity grounds because the officers arrested plaintiff for criminal trespass pursuant to a facially-valid order issued by Senator Pearce. The panel further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Senator Pearce’s Motion for Protective Order, which prevented plaintiff from questioning Senator Pearce about his acquaintance with J.T. Ready, a purported white supremacist. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Wallace would hold that Senator Pearce is entitled to qualified immunity and he would affirm the summary judgment in his favor.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 19, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.