Oregon city wins dismissal of Stabbin’ Wagon nonprofit’s conspiracy lawsuit

The court found the nonprofit failed to adequately state the majority of its claims.EUGENE, Ore. (CN) — A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed claims an Oregon city targeted and surveilled a harm reduction nonprofit after it received a state grant to open a peer respite center in the county.“Plaintiffs do not allege any facts to establish that defendants’ surveillance implied the regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory use of government power to suppress their speech,” U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai wrote in a 34-page opinion. “Plaintiffs allege a generalized fear that the government might use information it collected on them as opposed to acts of surveillance, like regular helicopter flights overhead, that cause intimidation or threat or cause ‘palpable and direct’ injuries.”The nonprofit, called Stabbin’ Wagon, along with its employees Melissa Jones and Samantha Strong, sued Medford and a handful of city employees last September.The Stabbin’ Wagon primarily serves drug users and homeless people in Medford, offering harm reduction and crisis support services such as HIV testing and clean syringe access. The nonprofit said it has a policy of not cooperating with police and has vocally opposed the city’s policy agendas.The plaintiffs, in theiramended complaint, described Medford as having a “history of a sundown town policy, anti-vagrancy laws and intense public policy influence by law enforcement.”After it received a $1.5 million grant from the Oregon Health Authority to open a center in the county in 2023, the Stabbin’ Wagon claims the city launched a lobbying campaign to “undo” the grant and harassed nonprofit employees by arresting and prosecuting them without probable cause during a public health event.The plaintiffs brought claims of First Amendment retaliation, conspiracy to violate civil rights and accused the city of having a policy of violating the group’s constitutional rights.The city argued the nonprofit submitted a “shotgun pleading,” or a complaint that indiscriminately incorporates assertions from one fact to another. Kasubhai disagreed, but dismissed the nonprofit’s complaint for failure to adequately state the claims.The nonprofit accused the city and certain staff members of collecting information about them and accused Medford Police of creating fake social media profiles to spy on their activities and document their attendance at protests.“Without more, these allegations do not establish an adequate injury to bring a First Amendment retaliation claim,” Kasubhai. a Joe Biden appointee, found.The two individual plaintiffs claimed they resigned from the Stabbin’ Wagon due to the “cumulative impacts of defendants’ actions,” but Kasubhai found that was not specific enough an injury to support the claim.As for the grant interference claim, in which the plaintiffs accused the city and its staff of disseminating false and misleading information about them to make them appear extreme and unqualified, Kasubhai also found the accusations insufficient.“Government speech that results in reputational harm and ultimately a loss in employment also does not meet the high bar for adverse action,” Kasubhai wrote. “At the outset, some of plaintiffs’ allegations fail because they seek to hold defendants accountable for protected speech.”The government must be allowed to express its own views, even when those views are critical of some of its citizens, Kasubhai wrote.Stabbin’ Wagon also accused the individual city defendants of retaliating against them by excluding it from city-sponsored communications, specifically pointing to the police excluding it from a notice sent to service providers ahead of encampment sweeps.“Plaintiffs here do not allege that any specific individual defendant caused the alleged exclusion,” Kasubhai wrote.Stabbin’ Wagon also accused the city of maintaining a policy and custom of surveilling them, excluding them from official communication, engaging in retaliatory arrests and interfering in their grant pursuit. But Kasubhai found the plaintiffs hadn’t shown any adequate constitutional violation. He did, however, allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint for this claim.Likewise, Kasubhai found the plaintiffs didn’t establish a conspiracy claim against the city defendants but allowed them to amend their complaint.Since Kasubhai allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, the city said it is not in a position to comment on active litigation.Stabbin’ Wagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads