Four pro se plaintiffs filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prohibitions on videorecording in three Arizona courthouses without judicial permission violated their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs challenged the policies enforced by various presiding judges and magistrates in Pima County. The district court dismissed the action, and the plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the recording bans were unconstitutional restrictions on speech.
The panel reviewed the dismissal de novo, applying the standard set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which requires a complaint to contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face. The court relied on Sammartano v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., which establishes that judicial complexes are nonpublic forums. In nonpublic forums, the government may impose restrictions on speech that are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the recording prohibitions were unreasonable or not viewpoint-neutral. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of leave to amend, noting that amendment would have been futile given the established precedent. The panel also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the district court was required to convert the motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment.
The judgment is final, leaving the prohibitions on recording in Arizona courthouses without judicial permission in place. The decision reinforces the legal standard that courthouses are nonpublic forums where reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions on recording are permissible. No further amendment to the complaint is available, and the lower court's denial of service expense reimbursement stands.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download