The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
FRANK A. DEPINTO,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:20cv11-RH-MJF
ROBIN SHADER,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The plaintiff asserts a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
First Amendment based on his exclusion from public libraries that are part of the
Northwest Regional Library System. The defendant is the System’s director. The
defendant has moved for summary judgment. The motion is before the court on the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 63, and the objections,
ECF Nos. 64 and 65. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections.
The record establishes without genuine dispute that the plaintiff repeatedly
engaged in disruptive, even threatening behavior in the libraries. The report and
recommendation correctly concludes that the defendant is entitled to summary
judgment.
First, whatever right a person may have to use a public library, the right does
not extend to disruptive or threatening behavior of the kind the plaintiff repeatedly
engaged in. A library user can be required to follow the library’s reasonable rules,
especially those that are neither content- nor viewpoint-based.
Second, qualified immunity applies to § 1983 damages claims against public
employees and protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly
violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). See generally Carroll
v. Carman, 574 U.S. 13 (2014); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002); Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). Thus a public employee may be held individually
liable only if the employee’s conduct violates clearly established law. Here the
defendant did not violate the plaintiff’s rights at all—and even more plainly did not
violate clearly established law.
In his objections, the plaintiff says summary judgment cannot be granted
because he demanded a jury trial. But summary judgment is proper when, as here,
a party is entitled to judgment even when genuine factual disputes are resolved in
favor of the adverse party.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The defendant’s summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 53, is granted.
2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This action was resolved on a
summary-judgment motion. It is ordered that the plaintiff Frank A. DePinto
recover nothing on his claims against the defendant Robin Shader. The claims are
dismissed on the merits.”
3. The clerk must close the file.
SO ORDERED on May 2, 2022.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge