PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has denied both the City of Philadelphia’s motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment from a street preacher locally known as “Philly Jesus”, who filed a wrongful prosecution case against it after being 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.
The City filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Nov. 5, arguing that Grant has had several opportunities to properly allege a Monell violation against it and did not do so.
“Plaintiff attributes his handcuffing and $50.00 citation to a ‘major problem with training on the First Amendment of the Philadelphia Police Department, 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.’ 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 dismissal motion read, in part.
“Plaintiff’s second amended complaint significantly expands the breadth of unrelated police actions – encompassing allegations ranging from arrests from 1991 and before, to handling of mass encampments during the Occupy Movement in 2011, to adverse employment actions dating as far back as 1998, to allegations of excessive force in responding to mass protests for racial justice in 2020. Despite having the benefit of 15 months of discovery and time for supplemental research, plaintiff has still only been able to identify a single incident of purported similar activity – his own prior arrest for soliciting money for photographs 7 years prior to the 2019 citation.”
Furthermore, the City argued that the record in this case “establishes that the City has constitutionally sufficient policies and training on First Amendment activity” and therefore, the City’s motion “should therefore be granted, and plaintiff’s Monell claim should be with prejudice.”
UPDATE
Subsequent to the City’s dismissal motion and the plaintiff’s later motion for partial summary judgment on Dec. 30, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Michael M. Baylson denied them both.
“After reviewing these motions and the briefs, the Court concludes that there are many disputed issues of fact and potentially important legal issues which will likely require a trial in this case, unless a settlement is reached between the parties. It is clear that the Plaintiff has stated First Amendment issues, and the City is relying on what it believes is reasonable police activity in crowd control and public safety. The Court cannot grant either one of the pending motions,” Baylson said.
A hearing to resolve any remaining discovery issues will be held on Wednesday, April 6, according to Baylson.
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