4th Circuit kicks Alamance protest arrest case back to state court

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals is sending a dispute over a 2020 arrest at an Alamance County protest back to state court. The decision vacates a trial judge’s ruling favoring the Alamance County sheriff over an arrested protester.

“Maurice Wells poses a tricky question,” Judge Julius Richardson wrote Tuesday for a unanimous three-judge appellate panel. “He got arrested at a protest in 2020 and was convicted of multiple charges in state court. He appealed the conviction. And now, while the appeal remains pending, he sues to challenge the arrest — claiming that it was retaliation for his speech.”

“His question for us is whether, in this situation, the state-court conviction precludes a federal-court finding that the arrest violated his rights,” Richardson added. “But federal courts do not exist to answer questions. They exist to redress injuries.”

“And to redress his arrest, Wells does not seek a compensatory remedy like damages,” the appellate opinion continued. “He instead asks for a declaratory judgment that the arrest was unconstitutional. Yet he does not show how this would redress what happened in the past.”

“Wells adds that the declaration he seeks might help him in other ways — perhaps warding off future arrest or prosecution,” Richardson explained. “But he does not show how a declaration can help him on these fronts either. So he lacks standing to seek it.”

The dispute stems from a 2020 protest outside the Alamance County Courthouse in Graham. Protesters aimed to “[s]how solidarity with George Floyd, remove a confederate monument, and oppose the Alamance County Sheriff,” Richardson wrote.

Wells “took umbrage” with a group conducting a counterprotest. He engaged in an expletive-laden argument with counterprotesters Gary Williamson Sr. and Gary Williamson Jr.

“This attracted the attention of the Sheriff himself, Terry Johnson, who was monitoring the protest,” Richardson wrote. “He worried that Wells and the Williamsons might fight. And as a crowd around them grew, Johnson began to worry that a skirmish could ripen into a riot.”

The sheriff urged the crowd of about 90 people to leave. He threatened the younger Williamson with arrest. Wells continued to shout as the sheriff talked to the Williamsons.

“Johnson warned Wells that if he didn’t ‘co-operate and disperse,’ ‘he would be charged and taken to jail,’” Richardson explained. “Wells dared him to try it: ‘Take me to [expletive] jail because I ain’t stopping.’ So Johnson obliged, cuffing Wells and handing him over to other officers on the scene.”

A state District Court convicted Wells of failure to disperse on command and disorderly conduct. He is appealing that decision.

Wells followed up by suing the sheriff in North Carolina Superior Court. The suit claimed that Johnson had violated Wells’ First Amendment rights. “As Wells saw things, his actions at the protest were ‘expressive conduct,’” Richardson wrote. “And he offered two First Amendment retaliation theories. First, he said, Johnson arrested him for his speech without probable cause that he had committed a crime. Second, he offered as an alternative, Johnson engaged in viewpoint discrimination by arresting him but not the Williamsons.”

The suit “sought only one remedy: a declaration that Johnson’s actions were unconstitutional,” Richardson wrote. “Wells adds that this remedy can help redress future injuries too. Without it, he claims, he ‘is uncertain as to how he can exercise his constitutional rights when speaking and acting during future protests.’”

Johnson removed the case to federal court. US Chief District Judge Catherine Eagles entered summary judgment in the sheriff’s favor and dismissed Wells’ case “with prejudice.” That means Wells could not bring up the same complaint again.

Appellate judges vacated Eagles’ decision.

“Federal courts cannot reach the merits just because parties present them,” Richardson wrote. “Instead, federal courts must confirm for themselves that they have jurisdiction. That duty includes ensuring that a plaintiff has standing.”

“Now, preferring to litigate in state court, Wells concedes that he lacks standing,” the appellate opinion explained. “For his part, Johnson agrees, apparently thinking that if Wells lacks standing in federal court, he would lack it in state court too. So now, the parties’ only dispute is what we should do about that fact.”

Wells asked for the case to return to state court. Johnson asked the 4th Circuit to uphold Eagles’ decision.

“If the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must remand the case,’ Richardson wrote. “Unpersuaded by Johnson’s objections, we will do as Wells asks.”

Judges Paul Niemeyer and Henry Floyd joined Richardson’s opinion.

The post 4th Circuit kicks Alamance protest arrest case back to state court first appeared on Carolina Journal.

The post 4th Circuit kicks Alamance protest arrest case back to state court appeared first on First In Freedom Daily.