Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Terry Goddard Attorney General CARRIE J. BRENNAN, Bar No. 018250 Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Telephone: (602) 542-7679 Fax: (602) 542-7670 Attorneys For State Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CONNIE R. ZAKRAJSEK, Case No: CIV 04-0449-PHX SMM Plaintiff, v. STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SUSAN ARMSTRONG, an individual; SUSAN ARMSTRONG, an employee of the (Assigned to the Honorable Stephen M. County of MARICOPA, ARIZONA; McNamee) RICHARD TEENSTRA, an individual; RICHARD TEENSTRA, an employee of the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, ARIZONA; COUNTY OF MARICOPA, ARIZONA, as the employer of Defendants SUSAN ARMSTRONG and RICHARD TEENSTRA; Hon. COLIN CAMPBELL, Presiding Judge of Maricopa County Superior Court, individually and in his capacity as Presiding Judge; and Does 1-25, Defendants.

Pursuant to Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1.10(l), Defendants Susan Armstrong, Richard Teenstra, and the Hon. Colin Campbell ("State Defendants") submit the following Statement of Facts in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 36

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1.

Plaintiff Connie Zakrajsek utilizes the Maricopa County Superior Court Law

Library for "study, maintaining legal knowledge and for participating in litigation as a pro se litigant and to serve the Most High God in various capacities including but not limited to furthering the reform of the American and Arizona Legal Systems and the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ pursuant to the command given her in Matthew 28:19." See Complaint, ¶ 1, on file herein. 2. Defendant Susan Armstrong is employed as the Reference and Information

Services Coordinator in the Law Library. Id. ¶ 7. 3. Id. ¶ 12. 4. At the time of the events described in the Complaint, Defendant Judge Colin Defendant Richard Teenstra is employed as the Director of the Law Library.

Campbell was the presiding judge of Maricopa County Superior Court. Id. ¶ 15. 5. Zakrajsek's Complaint arises out of her arrest on February 17, 2004, for

trespassing in the Law Library. Id. ¶29; see also Incident Report of Sgt. W.D. Garland, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. The Maricopa County Superior Court maintains a no solicitation policy in all

court buildings. See No Solicitation Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit B. 7. The policy forbids "solicitations for donations, selling or peddling, to the

distribution of sales or informational material of every nature, and to offers to provide legal advice or services" and further defines solicitation as: A. Any activity which might be considered or interpreted as the promotion, sale or transfer of products, services, or memberships, donations, or for the participation in a venture of any kind, including organizational or grievance activities other than those activities designed by employees to promote employee activities or employee welfare. B. The distribution and/or posting of handbills, leaflets, circulars, advertising or other printed material for purposes cited above. Id., at 1.

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 36

2

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

8.

The policy further states that one may apply to obtain authorization for

solicitation within court buildings and grounds through application to the presiding judge, and sets forth the procedures for obtaining such authorization. Id., at 1-2. 9. If persons are engaged in unauthorized solicitation within court buildings or

adjacent plazas, court supervisory personnel are to first advise the solicitor of the procedures to obtain authorization, and then to request that the solicitor "discontinue their activities or remove themselves from Court premises." Id., at 2. 10. 11. If the solicitor continues soliciting, the staff is to notify court security. Id. The governmental purposes behind the implementation of the no solicitation

policy are as follows: (1) to promote safety and security within court buildings and adjacent plazas and parking areas; (2) to promote a judicial atmosphere and prevent a commercial atmosphere; (3) to preserve the independence of the judiciary and court system; and (4) to preserve the solemnity and tranquility of the court buildings. See Affidavit of Judge Colin Campbell, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 12. Beginning in November 2003, Armstrong warned Zakrajsek about violating

the no solicitation policy. See Complaint, ¶ 20. 13. In December 2003, after receiving complaints from staff that Zakrajsek was

continually offering legal advice to patrons, in the Online Room, Armstrong provided Zakrajsek with a copy of the no solicitation policy and requested that she discontinue violating the policy. See affidavit of Susan Armstrong, attached hereto as Exhibit D, ¶ 4; see also Complaint ¶¶ 21 & 22. 14. Around Christmas 2003, Armstrong observed Zakrajsek doing legal work for

a gentleman, and gave her a copy of the no solicitation policy, at which time Zakrajsek laughed and continued typing. See Exhibit D, ¶ 5. Teenstra also told Zakrajsek at that time that she could not solicit patrons. Id.

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 36

3

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

15.

Armstrong continued to receive reports that Zakrajsek was soliciting patrons

in the library. See Exhibit D, ¶ 6. On February 17, 2004, Armstrong observed Zakrajsek doing legal work for library patrons. Id. ¶ 7. 16. On February 17, 2004, Armstrong contacted court security, and Maricopa

County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Garland responded. See Exhibit A; Exhibit D, ¶ 7. 17. Sgt. Garland advised Zakrajsek that she was being asked to leave due to her

violation of the court's no solicitation policy. Exhibit A, at 4. Zakrajsek refused to leave. Exhibit A, at 4. Sgt. Garland placed her under arrest for trespassing. Exhibit A, at 4. 18. On July 7, 2004, Teenstra and Armstrong requested court security inform

Zakrajsek that she could no longer use the Online Room in the Law Library. This step was taken because it was apparent that most of Zakrajsek's solicitation activities took place in that room, and because other patrons had refused to work in the Online Room when Zakrajsek was present. Zakrajsek remains, however, free to use the other library computers stationed outside the Online Room; these computers have identical functions and abilities as those in the Online Room. See Exhibit D, ¶ 10. 19. Armstrong's actions in enforcing the policy had nothing to do with

Zakrajsek's religious beliefs or her attitude toward them. Id. ¶ 8. In addition, Armstrong has never made a false and defamatory statement concerning Zakrajsek. Id. ¶ 9. 20. On March 4, 2004, Zakrajsek filed this Complaint alleging multiple

violations of her federal civil rights arising from her arrest and requesting declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Specifically, Zakrajsek's Complaint contains the following: Count I seeks a declaration that the no solicitation policy is unconstitutional (see Complaint, ¶¶ 18-29); Count II seeks injunctive relief enjoining the court staff from enforcing the no solicitation policy and allowing her to use the Law Library (see Complaint, ¶¶ 30-38); Counts III, IV, V, and VI seek monetary damages for the violation

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 36

4

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

of her federal civil rights (see Complaint, ¶¶ 39-58); and Count VII seeks damages for a state-law claim of defamation (see Complaint, ¶¶ 59-70). 21. On January 20, 2005, Zakrajsek was convicted of the crime of trespassing in

West Phoenix Justice Court. See Judgment of Judge Rachel Carrillo, attached hereto as Exhibit E. 22. In Count I of her Complaint, Zakrajsek asks that this Court declare the no

solicitation policy as unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment because it is not a valid time, place, and manner restriction, and that its terms are "vague and ambiguous." See Complaint, ¶¶ 27 & 28. In Count II, Zakrajsek requests that this Court enjoin the State Defendants from enforcing the no solicitation policy. See Complaint, ¶ 36. Zakrajsek states that the policy is unconstitutional as applied to her because it was enforced against her on a selective and unequal basis due to her "desire to serve God in the highest and greatest purpose for her life and for which God created her, and her outward and open expression of her religious beliefs." See Complaint, ¶¶ 10, 19, 35. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of September , 2005. TERRY GODDARD Attorney General

s/Carrie J. Brennan CARRIE J. BRENNAN Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 36

5

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

The foregoing document was filed electronically this 1st day of September , 2005, with a copy mailed this same date, to: The Honorable Stephen M. McNamee United State District Court Judge 401 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85003 AND Connie R. Zakrajsek P. O. Box 2065 Phoenix, AZ 85001 Plaintiff Pro Se COPY of the foregoing to be served electronically, on: Susan Linde Hable, Esq. Maricopa County Attorney's Office Division of County Counsel 222 N. Central Ste 1100 Phoenix AZ 85004 Attorneys for Maricopa County

s/Chauntelle Leavitt _____ Secretary to: CARRIE J. BRENNAN
921454

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 36

6

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 6 of 6