ca halloween federal court complaint
DESCRIPTION
Complaint in federal court to declare Halloween restrictions unconstitutionalTRANSCRIPT
1 Janice M. Bellucci, Esq., SBN 108911LA W OFFICE OF JANICE M. BELLUCCI571 Hartnell RoadSanta Maria, California 93455Tel: (805) 896-7854
23
4Attorneys for Plaintiffs John Doe #1, Jane Doe #2,John Doe #3, John Doe #4, Jane Doe #5, John Doe#6, Jane Doe #7, John Doe #8, Jane Doe #9 and JohnDoe #10
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN DOE #1, an individual; JANE DOE #2,an individual; JOHN DOE #3, an individual;JOHN DOE #4, an individual; JANE DOE #5,an individual; JOHN DOE #6, an individual;JANE DOE #7, an individual; JOHN DOE #8,an individual; JANE DOE #9, an individual;and, JOHN DOE #10, an individual,
Case No.:10
11
12
13
14
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First and FourteenthAmendments)
Plaintiffs,DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALvs.
15 CITY OF SIM! VALLEY and incorporatedCalifornia municipality; and DOES 1 through10, inclusive,16
17 Defendants.18
19
20
21
22
INTRODUCTION
This civil rights action challenges a Simi Valley Municipal Code provision that1.
suppresses and unduly chills protected speech and expression in violation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
23
24
25
26
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.c. Sections 1331, 1343(a),
and 2201, as well as under 42 U.S.c. Section 1983.
27
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF (42 u.s,c, § 1983)28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. Under 28 U.S.c. Section 1391(b), venue is proper in this district because defendants
is a municipality in this district and the events giving rise to the claims occurred and occur in this
district.
PLAINTIFF
4. Plaintiff John Doe #1 is a resident of the City of Simi Valley, California, since 1989
and a citizen of the United States, and was both at all times herein mentioned and relevant to this
action. Plaintiff John Doe #1 is required to register pursuant to California Penal Code Section 290
et seq., and has been so required at all times herein mentioned and relevant to this action.
5. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 is a resident ofthe City of Simi Valley, California, since 1989
and a citizen of the United States, and was both at all times herein mentioned and relevant to this
action. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 is the wife of Plaintiff John Doe #1 and resides with Plaintiff John
Doe #1, and has been the wife of Plaintiff John Doe #1 and has resided with Plaintiff John Doe #1 at
all times herein mentioned and relevant to this action.
6. Plaintiff John Doe #3 is a resident of the City of Simi Valley, California, since
August 1997 and a citizen of the United States, and was both at all times herein mentioned and
relevant to this action. Plaintiff John Doe #3 is required to register pursuant to California Penal
Code Section 290 et seq., and has been so required at all times herein mentioned and relevant to this
action.
7. Plaintiff John Doe #4 is a resident of the City ofSimi Valley, California, since
February 1996 and a citizen of the United States, and was both at all times herein mentioned and
relevant to this action. Plaintiff John Doe #4 is required to register pursuant to California Penal
Code Section 290 et seq., and has been so required at all times herein mentioned and relevant to this
action.
8. Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 is a resident of the City of Simi Valley, California, since July
1969 and a citizen of the United States, and was both at all times herein mentioned and relevant to
this action. Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 is the wife of Plaintiff John Doe #4 and resides with Plaintiff John
2
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF (42 V.S.C. § 1983)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2627
28
Doe #4, and has been the wife of Plaintiff John Doe #4 and has resided with Plaintiff John Doe #4 at
all times herein mentioned and relevant to this action.
9. Plaintiff John Doe #6 is a resident of the City of Simi Valley, California, since June
2003 and a citizen of the United States, and was both at all times herein mentioned and relevant to
this action. Plaintiff John Doe #6 is required to register pursuant to California Penal Code Section
290 et seq., and has been so required at all times herein mentioned and relevant to this action.
10. Plaintiff Jane Doe #7 is a resident of the City ofSimi Valley, California, since July
2003 and a citizen of the United States, and was both at all times herein mentioned and relevant to
this action. Plaintiff Jane Doe #7 is the wife of Plaintiff John Doe #6 and resides with Plaintiff John
Doe #6, and has been the wife of Plaintiff John Doe #6 and has resided with Plaintiff John Doe #6 at
all times herein mentioned and relevant to this action.
11. Plaintiff John Doe #8 is a resident of the City of Simi Valley, California, since July
2003 and a citizen of the United States, and was both at all times herein mentioned and relevant to
this action. Plaintiff John Doe #8 is the minor child of Plaintiffs John Doe #6 and Jane Doe #7 and
resides with Plaintiffs John Doe #6 and Jane Doe #7, and has been the minor child of Plaintiffs John
Doe #6 and Jane Doe #7 and has resided with Plaintiffs John Doe #6 and Jane Doe #7 at all times
herein mentioned and relevant to this action.
12. Plaintiff Jane Doe #9 is a resident of the City ofSimi Valley, California, since July
2003 and a citizen of the United States, and was both at all times herein mentioned and relevant to
this action. Plaintiff Jane Doe #9 is the minor child of Plaintiffs John Doe #6 and Jane Doe #7 and
resides with Plaintiffs John Doe #6 and Jane Doe #7, and has been the minor child of Plaintiffs John
Doe #6 and Jane Doe #7 and has resided with Plaintiffs John Doe #6 and Jane Doe #7 at all times
herein mentioned and relevant to this action.
13. Plaintiff John Doe #10 is a resident ofthe City of Simi Valley, California, since July
2010 and a citizen of the United States, and was both at all times herein mentioned and relevant to
this action. Plaintiff John Doe #10 is required to register pursuant to California Penal Code Section
290 et seq., and has been so required at all times herein mentioned and relevant to this action.
3
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF (42 u.s.c. § 1983)
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2223
24
25
26
27
28
14. Plaintiffs John Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, John Doe #3, John Doe #4, Jane Doe #5, John
Doe #6, Jane Doe #7, John Doe #8, Jane Doe #9 and John Doe #10 are collectively referred to
herein as "Plaintiffs".
15. Plaintiffs John Doe #1, John Doe #3, John Doe #4, John Doe #6 and John Doe #10
are collectively referred to herein as the "Registrant Plaintiffs".
16. Plaintiffs Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #5 and Jane Doe #7 are collectively referred to
herein as the "Spouse Plaintiffs".
17. Plaintiffs John Doe #8 and Jane Doe #9 are collectively referred to herein as the
"Minor Plaintiffs".
DEFENDANTS18. Defendant City of Simi Valley ("City") is an incorporated municipality located in
Ventura County, State of California. Simi Valley adopts municipal ordinances through a five-
member city council and enforces such ordinances through the Sirni Valley Police Department.
19. The true names and capacities of Defendants sued as DOES 1 through 10 are
unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sue those Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek
leave to amend this Complaint, if necessary, to reflect the true names once they have been
ascertained.
FACTUALALLEGATIONS20. Simi Valley Municipal Code Section 5-43.01 to 5-45.04, enacted as Ordinance No.
1201, on September 10,2012, (the "Ordinance") imposes life-long prohibition and regulation of
speech and association and imposes mandated speech on persons who are required to register
pursuant to California Penal Code Section 290 et seq. (a "Registrant") at their residence on October
31 ("Halloween") every year. The Ordinance imposes four burdens on the speech and association
rights of Registrants, and by virtue of their residence with Registrants, all persons who reside with
Registrants.
21. First, the Ordinance imposes upon all Registrants who "i) are visible on the Megan's
Law website, as maintained by the State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney
4
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF (42 V.S.C. § 1983)
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2223
24
25
26
27
28
General; and ii) have been criminally prosecuted and convicted of a sex crime(s) upon a child"
government-mandated speech by requiring all such persons to "[p]ost a sign, no smaller than twelve
(12) inches by twenty-four (24) inches, with a font size no smaller than 72 points, on the front door
at his or her residence stating, 'No candy or treats at this residence. ,,, (Ordinance Section 5.43-
03(a).) The Ordinance defmes a "child" as "any person(s) under the age of eighteen years of age
(sic)." (Ordinance Section 5-43.02(a).) According to the Ordinance, Registrants must "do" this
"between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m., on October 31 of each year ... " (Ordinance Section 5-
43.03.) Among other things, the Ordinance is silent as to whether this government-mandated
speech applies to other persons residing at the Registrant's residence.
22. Second, the Ordinance imposes a restraint on speech by requiring all Registrants to
"[l]eave all exterior residential, decorative, and ornamental lighting off during the evening hours
starting at 5:00 p.m. until midnight, the next day," (Ordinance Section 5-43.03(b)), but elsewhere-
as with the foregoing imposed speech mandate - requires that this burden be complied with
"between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m., on October 31 of each year ... " (Ordinance Section 5-
43.03.) Among other things, the Ordinance is silent as to whether a Registrant is permitted to leave
on any interior lighting visible from the exterior of the residence, whether the restraint includes
lighting in the rear or back yard of the residence and whether other person residing at the
Registrant's residence may "[l]eave all exterior residential, decorative, and ornamental lighting off
during the evening hours starting at 5:00 p.m. until midnight, the next day."
23. Third, the Ordinance imposes a restraint on speech by requiring all Registrants to
"[r]efrain from decorating his or her front yard and exterior of the residence with Halloween
decorations," (Ordinance Section 5-43.03(c)), and imposes this burden upon all Registrants
"between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m., on October31 of each year ... " (Ordinance Section 5-
43.03.) Among other things, the Ordinance is silent as to whether Registrants are permitted to have
non-Halloween decor in the "front yard and exterior" of the residence on Halloween or whether
others persons residing at the Registrant's residence may decorate the "front yard and exterior of the
residence with Halloween decorations."
5
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF (42 U.S.c. § 1983)
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2223
24
25
26
27
28
24. Fourth, the Ordinance imposes a restraint on speech and association by requiring allRegistrants to "[r]efrain from answering the door to children who are trick or treating," (Ordinance
Section 5-43.03(d)), and imposes this burden upon all Registrants "between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59
p.m., on October 31 of each year ... " (Ordinance Section 5-43.03.) Among other things, the
Ordinance is silent as to whether Registrants are permitted to answer the door to children who are at
their residence for other purposes, whether other persons residing at the Registrant's residence may
answer the door to "children who are trick or treating" or whether the minor children of a Registrant
may "trick or treat" at their own residence.
25. Other than defining "Child or Children" as specified above (Ordinance Section 5-
43.02(a)) and "Sex Offender" as "any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section
290 of the California Penal Code, regardless of whether that person is on parole or probation, and
has been convicted of an offense against a child" (Ordinance Section 5-43.02(b )), the Ordinance
provides no other definitions of any terms used therein.
26. The Ordinance imposes the penalty of a criminal misdemeanor upon any Registrant
who does not comply with any ofthe foregoing mandates. (Ordinance Section 5-43.04.)
27. As stated, the Ordinance prohibits, regulates and mandates speech and regulations
association speech and other expressive activity on private property.
28. The Ordinance applies only to speech of Registrants in the context of Halloween
celebration, while speech of a different content, even if expressed in the same time, place, and
manner, is not proscribed or regulated.
29. The prohibited and regulated speech is undisputedly a form of expression entitled to
the same constitutional protections as traditional speech. The Ordinance is a content-based
regulation of protected free speech because it distinguishes favored speech from disfavored speech
based on the content of the message. The Ordinance prohibits a discrete and socially outcast
minority from expressing any publicly-viewable celebration of Halloween on their own property on
October 31 every year. Also, the Ordinance forces this group to impose a burden on their own
safety and that of any person who resides with them by requiring them to turn off all exterior
6
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF (42 v.s.c. § 1983)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lighting at their residences on October 31 every year. In addition, the Ordinance blatantly forces
speech upon a particular sub-group within that outcast minority, further forcing shame upon
themselves by mandating that they place a large content-specific sign on their door every year on
October 31.
30. Moreover, enforcement of the Ordinance requires law enforcement to scrutinize the
content of the prohibited speech. For example, while a Registrant who decorates the front of their
home with Thanksgiving decorations such as (non-jack-o-lantern) pumpkins and gourds, a
scarecrow and pilgrims and Indians would pass scrutiny under the Ordinance, any Halloween decor
- which could be quite similar - would be found in violation thereof. The legality of the speech
therefore turns on the message, or content, of the speech. Content-based speech restrictions-
especially in private fora such as residences - are presumptively unconstitutional and must satisfy
strict scrutiny.
31. In addition, while the Ordinance does not facially impose burdens on other persons,
and specifically those who reside with Registrants, by imposing burdens on Registrants' relating to
their residences and conduct thereon on Halloween, the Ordinance, as applied, imposes the same
burdens on any person who resides with a Registrant as the Ordinance imposes on Registrants,
herein the Spouse Plaintiffs and Minor Plaintiffs. Alternatively, to the extent that Defendant City
argues that no person who resides with a Registrant may be held liable for violating the Ordinance
by not placing a sign of the prescribed size and content on the front door of the residence, leaving on
the residence's external lighting, decorating the exterior of the residence with Halloween
decorations andlor answering the door of the residence to children who are trick or treating, then
enforcement of the Ordinance requires law enforcement to scrutinize and discern between persons
who engage in the prohibited and mandated speech, herein among the Registrant Plaintiffs, Spouse
Plaintiffs and Minor Plaintiffs.
32. To the extent that the Ordinance prohibits Registrants from allowing their minor
children to trick or treat at their own residence on Halloween or to celebrate Halloween at their own
7
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF (42 U.S.c. § 1983)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2021
2223
24
25
2627
28
residence, the Ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment fundamental right to family
autonomy.
33. Defendant City lacks either a compelling or substantial legitimate governmental
interest in regulating speech and expression in the manner accomplished by the Ordinance.
34. The Ordinance is not the least restrictive means to further any compelling or
substantial governmental interest.
35. Even if it were content-neutral, the Ordinance fails to pass constitutional muster
because its restrictions are not sufficiently narrowly tailored to serve any significant governmental
interest that the City designed it to serve.
36. The Ordinance also ignores that alternative avenues of inquiry for determining who
is a Registrant is easily already available on the so-called "Megan's List" website, readily available
to any person with access to a computer with an internet connection.
37. The Ordinance is overbroad and burdens substantially more speech than is necessary
to further any governmental interest, and, to this end, imposes burdens on the Spouse Plaintiffs and
Minor Plaintiffs.
38. The Ordinance is vague and fails to provide sufficient notice of what is prohibited as
to allow Registrants to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law and prevent arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement. Specifically, as provided above, the Ordinance includes seemingly
conflicting time requirements and fails to define many terms.
39. Finally, the Ordinance is arbitrary, motivated by political incentive in response to
popular sentiment against Registrants, lends itself to discriminatory enforcement and suppression of
the constitutional rights of the Spouse Plaintiffs and Minor Plaintiffs, and cannot meet the stringent
standards required by the First Amendment on restrictions of free speech and association rights.
FIRST CLAIM
(42 V.S.e. § 1983 --First and Fourteenth Amendments)
Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint as though fully set40.
forth here.
8
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF (42 u.s.c. § 1983)
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2223
24
25
2627
28
41. By leaving in place, enforcing, and/or threatening to enforce the Ordinance,Defendant City deprives the Registrant Plaintiffs, Spouse Plaintiffs and Minor Plaintiffs and other
Registrants of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, including the
Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the rights to family autonomy therein, of
the United States Constitution. Defendant City commits these unconstitutional acts under color of
authority of law.
42. Continued enforcement or threats of enforcement ofthe Ordinance violates the rights
of Registrant Plaintiffs, Spouse Plaintiffs and Minor Plaintiffs and the rights of other Registrants
that are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including both the Substantive Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the rights to family autonomy therein, of the United
States Constitution. The Ordinance therefore should be enjoined and its previous enforcement
nullified.
SECOND CLAIM
(28 U.S.C. §2201- Declaratory Relief)
43. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Complaint as though fully set
forth here.
44. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant City regarding the
constitutionality and legal enforceability of the Ordinance.
45. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of their rights with regard to the Ordinance.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
46. Because of the actions alleged above, Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendant as
follows:
a. That Defendant be enjoined in perpetuity from enforcing Simi Valley
Municipal Code Sections 5-43.01 through 5-43.04;
b. That Simi Valley Municipal Code Sections 5-43.01 through 5-43.04 be
declared null and void as unconstitutional in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution;
9
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF (42 D.S.C. § 1983)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF (42 U.S.c. § 1983)
c. That Plaintiffs recover damages in an amount to be proved at trial;d. That Plaintiffs recover from Defendant, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, all of
3 II Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of this litigation; and
4 e. That Plaintiffs recover such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
5
6 II Dated: September 28,2012 LAW OFFICE OF JANICE M. BELLUCCI
7
8
9
10
11
12
BY:/h~~'~(iA~ICE M. BELLUCCI
orneys for Plaintiffs John Doe #1, Jane Doe #2,John Doe #3, John Doe #4, Jane Doe #5, John Doe #6,Jane Doe #7, John Doe #8, Jane Doe #9 and John Doe#10
13
14
15
16
10