PHILADELPHIA – For now, a federal judge has thrown out a claim for municipal liability against the City of Philadelphia from a street preacher locally known as “Philly Jesus” who was arrested when he was evangelizing in a public park just before Christmas in 2019.
Plaintiff Michael Grant first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 7, 2020 versus the City and 11 unnamed Philadelphia Police Department officers.
Grant, 33, described himself in the lawsuit a street preacher and evangelist who maintains no permanent home and earns no regular income, outside of the charity of friends and family. Grant is also known among many Philadelphia citizens as “Philly Jesus,” due to his perceived physical resemblance to Jesus Christ.
Grant said he was arrested on Dec. 21, 2019 while preaching near Philadelphia City Hall in the area of Love Park, which during the Christmas holiday season is transformed into an outdoor, holiday-themed marketplace named “Christmas Village.”
Grant claimed he was exercising his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, along with being next to a sign which read, “If you die, are you going to Heaven? Find out here?” or words to that effect, and had a basket for people to give gifts to him if they wanted to.
At that point, Officer John Doe approached Grant and allegedly remarked, “Do you know where you are going?” and “glared at the sign with disapproval" before calling on Grant to stop preaching and leave the area.
Grant said he then asserted his First Amendment rights to be present and preach in that public area. In response, Doe arrested Grant and placed him in handcuffs. Grant added he was “dragged across the street by two Philadelphia police officers and held in handcuffs for approximately a half-hour.”
“Defendant Officer John Doe then scolded plaintiff and threatened plaintiff with jail if plaintiff did not leave the area and cease his First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of religion. Doe then issued a written citation to plaintiff to deter plaintiff from exercising plaintiff’s First Amendment right of free speech and freedom of religion,” the suit said.
“The citation that defendant Officer John Doe issued to plaintiff contained at least one count under the ‘failure to disburse’ portion of Pennsylvania’s Disorderly Conduct statute, which was entirely inapplicable to any of the facts that occurred at or near that time. Plaintiff had in no way violated that statute or any other law in Pennsylvania.”
When Grant again asserted his constitutional rights, he said Doe let him go because “he knew plaintiff had broken no law and the arrest was wrongful.”
“The arrest was undertaken without probable cause and in retaliation for the exercise of plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Street preaching and evangelizing is free speech, protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,” the suit stated.
“The City of Philadelphia failed to properly train, supervise and discipline their employees to prevent the harassment, arrest and prosecution of musicians, panhandlers and others who are engaged in protected First Amendment activity.”
It’s not Grant’s first run-in with the Philadelphia Police Department.
He faced both a drug charge in 2009 and was involved in a fraud matter in 2014, pleading guilty in both cases and was sentenced to one year of probation for each.
A 2016 incident at an Apple Store in Center City led to his arrest for disorderly conduct and defiant trespass, charges for which he was later convicted in Philadelphia Municipal Court and sentenced to three months of probation.
Counsel for the City filed an answer to the complaint on Sept. 14, 2020, denying Grant’s allegations in their entirety and bringing four affirmative defenses to the case.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect each claim he asserts, and plaintiff has suffered no legally cognizable injury, harm, loss, or damage upon which relief can be granted,” the City’s answer said.
“Each of plaintiff’s claims is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Answering defendant asserts all of the defenses, immunities, and limitations of damages available to it under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and avers that plaintiff’s remedies are limited exclusively thereto.”
After an order from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Jan E. DuBois, the formerly unnamed officers were then identified on Feb. 5 as Steven Moffitt and Emile Sauris, and an amended complaint was filed.
Counsel for the City filed a memorandum in support of dismissal on Feb. 19.
“Beyond suing the officers themselves, plaintiff attributes his handcuffing and $50 citation to a ‘major problem with training on the First Amendment of the Philadelphia Police, in that the only training received is Directive 3.12 and other materials but little or no other specific guidelines to help police make decisions what to do when there is protected expressive activity going on in public forum areas in Philadelphia,” the City’s memorandum stated, in part.
“Plaintiff generically concludes that this ‘major problem’ was known to the Police Commissioner and the Mayor, specifically regarding the right to leaflet and express political or religious speech in public forums.”
The City added that the plaintiff’s reference of “a smattering of unrelated arrests which pre-date this incident by well over 10 years, along with his own 2014 arrest” were not applicable and that despite the plaintiff’s argument that the policing directive in question could not be found on the Philadelphia Police Department website, it is in fact there and is “one of many reasons why the City’s [dismissal] motion should be granted.”
UPDATE
On Sept. 20, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Philadelphia Judge Michael M. Baylson ordered the count for municipal liability dismissed without prejudice and for further substantiation of the counts for false arrest and 1st Amendment violation.
“Following hearing in open court with counsel and considering arguments regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss and the response thereto, plaintiff’s motion to compel and the response and reply thereto, the Court hereby orders: Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice as to Count V,” Baylson said.
“Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint as to Count V and is instructed to clearly identify each policy and/or custom that he is challenging under a Monell theory of liability and provide factual allegations in support for each. Within 14 days, defendant is to produce to plaintiff all documents responsive to Counts I through III.”
For federal claims of violation of the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, plus state law claims of assault and battery, false arrest and imprisonment and invasion of privacy, the plaintiff is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, declaratory and further relief, an injunction ordering the City to cease and desist from arresting street musicians, preachers and panhandlers and a trial by jury as to each count and defendant.
The plaintiff is represented by Vicki Piontek in Danville and J. Michael Considine in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Deputy City Solicitor Jonathan Cooper, Anne B. Taylor and Meghan E. Claiborne of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00735
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com