Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 1 of 18 PageID 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

MR. JUSTIN CHINO SALAS,


A/k/a JUSTIN HARP,
In his individual capacity as a
Private Citizen and
d/b/a
GENTX MEDIA
A Sole Proprietorship

*
*
*
*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*
*

VERSUS

* TRIAL COURT CAUSE NUMBER:


*

HON. MIKE RAWLINS


In his official capacity as the
Mayor of The City of Dallas, Tx.
MR. B. ADAM McGOUGH,
MS. CAROLYN KING ARNOLD,
MR. CASEY THOMAS,
MR. ERIK WILSON,
MS. JENNIFER STAUBACH GATES,
MR. RICKEY DON CALLAHAN,
MS. TIFFINNI YOUNG,
In their official capacities as
Members of the City of Dallas
City Council

THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS


By and through the Secretary
Of the City of Dallas
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*

PLAINTIFF JUSTIN SALAS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SEEKING


DECLARA TORY RELIEF, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, PERMANENT
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES, AND A TTORNEY FEES

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:


COMES NOW, MR. CHINO SALAS, in his individual capacity as a private

citizen, and as the corporate representative of Gentex Media in the official capacity as a

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 1

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 2 of 18 PageID 20

commercial vendor (hereinafter referred to collectively as Plaintiff), by and through its


undersigned counsel, GARY P. KRUPKIN, Esq., an attorney licensed in the State of

Texas and admitted to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and

files this, its Original Complaint Seeking Declaratory Relief, Preliminary Injunctive
Relief, Permanent Injunctive Relief, Damages and Attorney Fees, in the above-entitled

and -numbered cause of action. The Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court hereby

GRANT the relief requested herein. For just cause, the Plaintiff would show this Court

as follows:
SECTION NUMBER I: INTRODUCTION AND
DESCRIPTION OF CAUSE OF ACTION
(1)

This is a civil case. Plaintiff prays this court issue a Declaratory Judgment against

Defendants holding that the resolution enacted by the Dallas City Council violates the

free speech and free expression rights of the United States Constitution and the
concomitant provisions of the Texas Constitution. Plaintiff prays this Court grant a
preliminary injunction and further grant a permanent injunction against Defendants, such
injunction ordering and directing City of Dallas officials to issue a contract for the use of

the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention center to Plaintiff and/or Three Expo Events, LLC,

or others similarly situated, for use of that facility to conduct the Exxxotica expo. The
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants, acting in their official capacities as elected city

officials of the City of Dallas, from acting under color of state and municipal law to
deprive Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities granted under the United States

Constitution and the Texas Constitution.

(2)

Plaintiff prays the Court prohibit the Defendants from enforcing various City

Council resolutions, bans, proscriptions or ordinances against Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Defendants

Page 2

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 3 of 18 PageID 21

determined that an exposition commonly known as EXXXOTICA EXPO 2016


(hereinafter, Exxxotica) constituted an impermissible use of a public facility,

specifically the

KAY

BAILEY

HUTCHINSON

CONVENTION

CENTER

(hereinafter, Convention Center).


(3)

Plaintiff avers that Exxxotica does not engage in obscenity or any other form of

unconstitutional speech or expression. As such, the exposition does not run afoul of any

City of Dallas Municipal Ordinance or is an impermissible use of the Convention Center.

Moreover, Plaintiff avers that Exxxotica is a lawful event, well within its constitutional
rights to lease exhibit space, and that the city would most likely be sued and lose,
potentially costing the city and taxpayers a large sum.

See, Statement of the Dallas City Attorney, Warren M.S. Ernst, Esq.
http://3xevents.com/xl6/press/2016 2.12 federal iniunction.html.
(4)

Despite warnings by and against the advice of the Dallas City Attorney, the City

Council passed a resolution banning the use of the convention center by Three Expo

Events, LLC for its 2016 Exxxotica exposition. Many persons, including at least seven
(7) members of the City Council acknowledged publicly that Exxxotica was within its

legal and constitutional rights to use the Convention Center. Nevertheless, eight (8)

members of the City Council, understanding the potential legal ramifications, voted to
deny use of the Convention Center on personal, moral or religious beliefs. Id.

(5)

Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Texas and a resident of Dallas County. In his

capacity as a private citizen, Plaintiff invokes his right to participate in and receive

speech protected by the 1st Amendment. See, e.g., Reliable Consultants v. Ronnie Earle,

538 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2008).

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 3

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

(6)

Page 4 of 18 PageID 22

Plaintiff, in addition to being a private citizen, is a commercial vendor for

Exxxotica. In his capacity as a provider of commercial goods or services, Plaintiff

invokes his right to participate in and provide commercial services to attendees of


Exxxotica as speech protected by the 1st Amendment. Id.

(7)

Plaintiff prays the Court issue a Declaratory Judgment holding that the

Defendants ban, resolution, or ordinance (hereinafter, ban or resolution) are facially


unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff. Plaintiff prays the Court
issue a Declaratory Judgment holding that the resolution violates the United States

Constitutions First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Texas
Constitutions Article I, Sections 8 and 19.
SECTION NUMBER II: JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF THE COURT

(8)

Plaintiff brings this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A., 1983, and 1988 (West,

2015). Plaintiff seeks redress of Defendants deprivations of constitutionally guaranteed

rights and privileges.

Defendants acted under color of state and municipal law.

Defendants violated Plaintiffs U.S. Constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth and
Fourteenth Amendments and rights conferred by Article 1, Section 8 of the Texas

Constitution. Federal statute confers jurisdiction. See, 28 U.S.C.A., 1331, 1343(a)(3)


(West, 2015).

(9)

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, including a declaration that Defendants

resolution violates Federal and State constitutional provisions, supra. Federal statute

confers jurisdiction over declaratory judgments. See, 28 U.S.C.A., 2201, 2002 (West,
2015) and FED. R. CIV. PROC., rule 57 (West, 2015).
(10)

Plaintiff requests attorney fees. See, 42 U.S.C.A., 1988(b) (West, 2015).

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 4

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

(11)

Page 5 of 18 PageID 23

Federal statute grants the Court supplemental jurisdiction to decide Texas

constitutional claims. See, 28 U.S.C.A., 1367 (West, 2015).


(12)

Venue is appropriate in this Court. The various acts of which Plaintiff complains

occurred within the Northern District of the United States District Court.
SECTION NUMBER III: PARTIES
(13)

Plaintiff is a private citizen. Plaintiff may be served with process or legal paper

and documents at the following address: 5206 Compass Link, Suite 1506, Irving, Texas,

75039.
(14)

Plaintiff operates a commercial enterprise; Gentex Media. The business is a sole

proprietorship. All claims, causes of action, damages, and relief afforded to Plaintiff in

his personal capacity are amenable equally to Plaintiff in his commercial profession.
(15)

Defendant, Honorable Mike Rawlins is the Major of Dallas, Texas. Dallas is a

political subdivision of the State of Texas. Summons may be served on Mayor Rawlins
at the following address: Office of the Mayor, Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street,

Dallas, Texas, 75201.


(16)

Defendant Councilpersons, B. Adam McGough, Carolyn King Arnold, Casey

Thomas, Erik Wilson, Jennifer Staubach Gates, Rickey Don Callahan, and Tiffinni

Young, are officials of the City of Dallas, Texas. Summons may be served on these

individuals at the following address: Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas,
75201.
(17)

Defendant City of Dallas, Texas is a political entity of The State of Texas and a

home rule city therein. Summons may be served on the City at the following address:
Ms. Rosa A. Rios, City Secretary, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 5

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 6 of 18 PageID 24

SECTION NUMBER IV: STA TEMENT OF FACTS


(18)

The Exxxotica expo appeared in several venues across the United Stated during

201 5. The nature of the exposition was a celebration of things and people erotic.

(19)

Plaintiff contracted with the promoter to participate as a commercial enterprise in

the Dallas exposition. Plaintiff owns and operates an adult-themed publication. Nothing

in Plaintiffs commercial operation is obscene or otherwise violates the wide latitude

afforded 1st Amendment protection. Plaintiff also participated in the exposition as a


private citizen viewing the artistic and commercial offerings of Exxxotica.
(20)

There was nothing duplicitous or surreptitious about the expositions theme. No

member of the general public was deceived by the speech or expression promoted by
Exxxotica.
(21)

The 2015 Exxxotica exposition was a huge success. It was an economic boon to

the City, the Convention Center, and local merchants and businesses. Moreover, the
exposition was free of any criminal activity or obscenity. Based on the positive results of

the 2015 show, city officials extended an invitation for Exxxotica to return to the
Convention Center in 2016; tentatively May 20-22.

(22)

Mayor Rawlings did not want Exxxotica to reprise its successful 2015 campaign.

On or about February, 2016, Rawlings directed the City Attorney draft a City Council

resolution denying Three Expo Events, LLC access to the Convention Center. This is

true despite informing previously the City Council that the

1st Amendment afforded

Exxxotica protection as constitutionally safeguarded speech.

The City Attorneys

resolution became part of the February 10, 2016 Council agenda. The resolution ran

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 6

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 7 of 18 PageID 25

afoul of the Convention Centers Executive Directors approval for Exxxoticas return to

the facility.
(23)

At the February 10, 2016 City Council Meeting, the City Attorney advised the

Council that the

1st

Amendment permitted Exxxotica access to the public facility.

Moreover, Citys sexually oriented business ordinance did not apply to the exposition. A
police report indicated the 2015 exposition was completely crime-free and demonstrated

no secondary effects often attributed to sexually oriented enterprises.

Despite

awareness of these facts, eight (8) City Council members passed the resolution ordering
the City Manager not contract with Three Expo Events to produce Exxxotica in 2016.
(24)

From the denial of his

1st Amendment rights, both as a citizen and commercial

vendor, Plaintiff brings this cause of action to enforce those Constitutional liberties.
(25)

The ban on Exxxotica reduces the ability of citizens and commercial vendors to

access constitutionally protected speech and products and denies expression to those
wishing to engage in that speech. The ban not only impedes

1st Amendment liberty it

thwarts privacy rights guaranteed by the Substantive Due Process Clause of the U.S.
Constitutions

14th

Amendment and similar provisions of the Texas Constitution. The

U.S. Supreme Court articulated these rights in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123
S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003).
(26)

The resolution violates also the Constitutional guarantees and procedural due

process right as a governmental ban drawn and enforced arbitrarily and subjectively by

officials relying not on legal bedrock, but a political and moral agenda disfavored by our
sense of ordered liberty and justice. The political officials that orchestrated Exxxoticas

ban are subject to political whim. They likely received instructions to deny access to

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 7

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 8 of 18 PageID 26

public facilities by legitimate commercial enterprises and private citizens not favored by

various political factions.


SECTION NUMBER V: STA TEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 - Violation of the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendment
Substantive Due Process Clause

(27)

Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference each paragraph of the

foregoing Complaint.
(28)

Defendants ban is subject to strict scrutiny; it violates the right to substantive due

process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitutions

14th Amendment.

Defendants resolution

restrains the liberty interest of an individuals right to engage in protected

1st Amendment

expression. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, cited supra. Moreover, Defendants resolution

restrains the liberty interest to engage in commercial speech, such speech being non
violative of the standard established by the Supreme Court. See, generally, Miller v.
California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419, 1973 U.S. 149 (1973); see,

also, Reliable Consultants v. Ronnie Earle, 517 F.3d 738 affirmed on rehearing en
banc,

538

F.3d

355

(2008)

(holding,

restricting

commercial

transactions

unconstitutionally burdened the exercise of individual rights.)


(29)

Defendants arbitrarily and subjectively banned Exxxotica without consideration

of the

1st Amendment protections granted non-obscene speech and expression. Plaintiff

is neither a sexually oriented business nor does Plaintiff engage in obscenity. Because of

Plaintiffs protected speech, Defendants capriciously and improperly prevented Plaintiff


from exercising both his individual and commercial rights. This decision inherently
precludes citizens from obtaining Plaintiffs products or attending Exxxotica.

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 8

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 9 of 18 PageID 27

Defendants prohibition on granting use of the Convention Center affects both the private
and commercial components of protected speech and infringes on private conduct.
(30)

There is insufficient governmental interest to justify Defendants denial of a

license to conduct Exxxotica in a govemmentally-owned facility or enact a ban on


Exxxotica, ab initio. By so doing, Defendants intrude on Plaintiffs business and privacy

interests and the interests of citizens similarly situated.

Defendants possess no

compelling interest in regulating either Exxxotica s or Plaintiffs commercial interests or


denying private citizens from enjoying their 1st Amendment freedom to engage in

proscribed conduct and expression.

Defendants conduct ultimately restricts an

individuals and businesss freedom to engage in protected speech and expression.


(31)

Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief; viz, a decision that Defendants ban on

Exxxotica is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
(32)

Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief; viz, a decision that prohibits enforcement

of Defendants resolution against permitting Exxxotica to hold its exposition in the Kay
Bailey Convention Center, and permit Plaintiff to participate in the exposition as both a

commercial vendor and private citizen.


Claim 2 - Violation of the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment
Commercial Speech Rights

(33)

Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference each paragraph of the

foregoing Complaint.
(34)

The basis of Defendants ban constitutes an activity that runs totally counter to

the values, mores, and beliefs of the vast majority of the citizens of the City of Dallas.
See, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, (Feb. 6, 2015). This definition ignores the broad spectrum

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 9

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

of speech and expression imbued in a robust

Page 10 of 18 PageID 28

1st Amendment, and places subjective intent

ahead of legal obligation.


(35)

Defendants resolution is facially invalid, void for vagueness and overbreadth,

and subject to strict scrutiny. Defendants ban imposes a complete denial of freedom of
expression for activity that was acceptable only one year earlier than the 2016 event.

Defendants decision that Plaintiff wanted to participate in protected speech constitutes

an impermissible prior restraint.

Defendants ban vests overbroad and unbridled

discretion in municipal officials. Those officials deny permission to use a public facility
for a legal and warranted use. Defendants reliance on a chimera of values, mores, and

beliefs, eliminates unlawfully Plaintiffs ability to conduct his business and censors
protected expression in the City of Dallas.
(36)

Defendants can assert no valid, substantial, or compelling interest in justifying

their regulation of protected speech.

This is particularly true in cases where the

communication is limited to consenting adults. Defendants resolution does not advance


directly any substantial governmental interest as applied to Plaintiff, both as a

commercial vendor and private citizen, and to those persons and businesses similarly

situated.
(37)

Defendants resolution, one that constitutes an activity and runs totally counter to

the values, mores, and beliefs of . . . the citizens of the City of Dallas, is not narrowly
tailored to affect only those businesses that cause adverse secondary effects on the

community. See, e.g., City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, 475 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 925,

89 L.Ed.2d (1986); Encore Videos, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 330 F.2d 288 (5th Cir.,
2003), cert, denied, 540 U.S. 982 (2003), clarified, 352 F.2d 938 (5th Cir., 2003).

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 10

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

(38)

Page 11 of 18 PageID 29

Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief; viz, a decision that the resolution extant

violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, both facially and as applied to
Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that Defendants ban is
unenforceable against Plaintiff, Exxxotica, Three Expo Events, LLC, and those persons
and businesses similarly situated.
(39)

Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief; viz, a decision that prohibits enforcement

of the Defendants resolution against the Plaintiff and an order to issue Plaintiff and/or
Three Expo Events, LLC. a contract to conduct the Exxxotica expo in the Kay Bailey

Hutchison Convention Center, instanter.


Claim 3 - Violation of the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendment
Procedural Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause

(40)

Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference each paragraph of the

foregoing Complaint.
(41)

Defendants ban creates a scheme that permits arbitrary, subjective, and

capricious decisions by governmental officials that impact significant constitutional


guarantees. A decision to ban Plaintiffs participation in Exxxotica creates a presumption

that is difficult, if not impossible, to remedy through Defendants administrative

processes. The resolution excuses Defendants from articulating clearly, cogently, and
legally the basis for denying access to a public facility to an organization and individuals
engaged in protected speech and expression.

The scheme does not require any

justification for Defendants decision. In the case at bar, Defendants decisions depart
clearly from a logical extension of legal precedent.

(42)

The resolutions decision-making process violates the Due Process Clause of the

14th

Amendment. Defendants resolution, based on a violation of values, mores, and

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 11

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 12 of 18 PageID 30

beliefs burdens impermissibly Plaintiffs liberty, privacy, and speech, and is subject to
strict scrutiny. See, Stanley v. Georgia , 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542
(1969); see, also, Lawrence v. Texas, cited supra.
(43)

Defendants ban denying access to a public facility creates an impermissible

classification that is arbitrary, irrational, content based, and violative of the Equal
Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendment.
(44)

Defendants ban fails to provide any opportunity for prompt judicial

determination of appeal of an adverse decision and fails further to incorporate procedural


safeguards. See, Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649
(1965); see, also, FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, Texas, 493 U.S. 215, 227, 110 S.Ct. 596,

107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990).


(45)

Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief; viz, a decision that the process by which

the City Council enacted its resolution to deny Plaintiff access to a public facility is
invalid facially and as applied to Plaintiff and others similarly situated.
(46)

Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief; viz, a decision that prohibits enforcement

of the Defendants resolution against the Plaintiff and an order to issue Three Expo
Events, LLC a contract to conduct the Exxxotica exposition, instanter.
Claim 4 - Violation of the Texas Constitution

(47)

Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference each paragraph of the

foregoing Complaint.
(48)

Defendants resolution violates Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution.

Defendants ban deprives Plaintiff the right to substantive and procedural due process.
Concomitant with Claims 1 and 3, supra, Defendants resolution infringes, restricts, and

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 12

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 13 of 18 PageID 31

hinders the penumbral right to privacy and imposes a presumption that Plaintiff engages
in unprotected
(49)

1st Amendment activity.

Defendants resolution violates Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution.

Defendants ban infringes on Plaintiffs commercial free speech rights concomitant with
Claim 2, supra.
(50)

Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief; viz, a decision that the classification

process enunciated in Defendants resolution is invalid facially and as applied to Plaintiff

pursuant to Article I, Sections 8 and 19 of the Texas Constitution.


(51)

Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief; viz, a decision that prohibits enforcement

of the Defendants resolution against the Plaintiff and an order to issue Three Expo
Events, LLC a contract to conduct Exxxotica, instanter, pursuant to Article I, Sections 8

and 19 of the Texas Constitution.


Claim 5 - Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
(52)

Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference each paragraph of the

foregoing Complaint.
(53)

Defendants prohibited Plaintiff and others from engaging in protected speech and

expression by denying a contract for the use of the Convention Center to Three Expo

Events, LLC.
(54)

If Defendants prevent Plaintiff from operating his business or participating as a

private citizen at Exxxotica, even for a short period, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury

to its constitutionally protected rights to engage in and promote protected expression to


vendors and patrons.

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 13

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

(55)

Page 14 of 18 PageID 32

No remedy at law would suffice to protect Plaintiff for the reasons enumerated,

supra.
(56)

Injunctive and declaratory relief would serve the public interest. Unless the Court

grants the requested relief, Defendants will extinguish citizens rights to attend, purchase,

possess, or access constitutionally protected material and expression.


(57)

No substantial harm will result from the declarations and injunctive relief

requested. By granting declaratory and injunctive relief, a single trial will determine the
constitutionality of Defendants resolution. This solution promotes judicial efficiency

and conserves valuable judicial resources. Further, the requested relief preserves the
status quo.

Claim 6 - Attorney Fees, Costs, and Ancillary Expenses


(58)

Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference each paragraph of the

foregoing Complaint.
(59) Defendants actions forced Plaintiff to retain the undersigned Counsel to represent

his legal interests. Plaintiff incurred costs and sustained damages including, but not
limited to, deprivation of constitutional rights, lost profits, loss of business goodwill, loss

of business opportunities, future business, attorney fees, and ancillary costs and expenses
associated with prosecuting this cause of action. Plaintiff claims reimbursement for all
direct and ancillary costs and expenses associated with this cause of action, including
attorney fees.

SECTION NUMBER VI: PRAYER FOR RELIEF


(60)

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff respectfully requests

this Court hereby:

Plaintiff s Original Complaint

Page 14

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

(61)

Page 15 of 18 PageID 33

(1) Grant the relief requested herein; and,

(2) Declare that the Defendants ban is unconstitutional, both facially and as

applied to the Plaintiff; and,


(3) Grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants

from enforcing their resolution against Plaintiff and all others similarly situated,

including Three Expo Events, LLC; and,


(4) Order Defendants issue a contract of use to Three Expo Events, LLC to

engage in protected speech and expression in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention

Center, instanter; and,


(5) Grant Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and payment of ancillary costs and

expenses to prosecute this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 1988; and,


(6) Grant Plaintiff monetary damages for lost profits, lost business opportunities,

loss of goodwill, and lost future business; and,


(7)

Grant Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages

and costs incurred; and,


(8) Grant Plaintiff whatever and further relief, either in law or in equity, to which

this Court deems the Plaintiff fit to receive.


Respectfully submitted,

MR.
11 16rC<
Riel

lUPKIN, ESQ.
fee Drive
i, Texas 75081
Telkphine 972-261-8284
Facsimile 972-671-3671
Electronic Mail: krupkinlaw@gmail.com
Texas Bar Card Number: 00790010

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 15

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 16 of 18 PageID 34

Admitted to The State Bar of Texas


Admitted to the United States District Court
Northern District of Texas
Attorney at Law representing the Plaintiff

Plaintiff s Original Complaint

Page 16

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 17 of 18 PageID 35

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS 44-TXND (Rev. 12/12)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

%aas Mayor, Councilpersons Casey Thomas, Carolyn


Arnold, Rickey Callahan, Tiffinni Young, Erik Wilson, Adam McGough,
Jennifer Staubach Gates, City of Dallas, through C. Rios, City Sec.

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

M$e Rawlins,

Mr. Justin "Chino" Salas, a/k/a Justin Harp, 5206 Compass Link, Suite
Number 1506, Irving, Texas, 75039
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
Dallas
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant


Dallas
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

NOTE:

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (If Known)

Gary P. Krupkin, 1116 Commerce Drive, Richardson, Texas 75081


Texas Bar Card 00790010, Admitted in the N. Dist. of Texas

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X" in One Box for Plaintiff

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X" in One Box Only)

and One Box for Defendant)

(For Diversity Cases Only)

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

54 3 Federal Question

U.S. Government
Defendant

(U.S. Government Not a Party)

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of This State

PTF
(X 1

DEF
55 1

Citizen of Another State

Citizen or Subject of a

PTF
Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business In This State

DEF
04

Incorporated and Principal Place


of Business In Another State

0 5

Foreign Nation

3 6

Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only)


CONTRACT

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
1 52 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY
0 310 Airplane
0 315 Airplane Product
Liability
O 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
O 330 Federal Employers
Liability
O 340 Marine
O 345 Marine Product
Liability
O 350 Motor Vehicle
O 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
O 360 Other Personal
Injury
O 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
53 440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
O 365 Personal Injury'
Product Liability
O 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
O 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability

PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate

625 Drug Related Seizure


of Property 21 USC 881

690 Other

PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management

Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of

OTHER STATUTES

BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS


870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRS Third Party
26 USC 7609

375 False Claims Act


400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange

890 Other Statutory Actions

891 Agricultural Acts


893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration

Actions

Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

55 1

Original
Proceeding

2 Removed from
State Court

4 Reinstated or
Reopened

Remanded from
Appellate Court

5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)

6 Multidistrict
Litigation

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of 1st and 14th Amendments to O.S. Constitution, Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988

Brief description of cause:

City of Dallas Mayor and City Council enacted a resolution banning use of a public facility in violation of 1st Amend.

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION


VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED PENDING OR CLOSED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE None
SIGNATURJ IF A'

DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:


JURY DEMAND:
Yes 55 No

DEMAND $

s
lOCKET NUMBER

None

:Y

02/22/2016
T

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY


RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APP1

IG IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-00488-B Document 2 Filed 02/22/16

Page 18 of 18 PageID 36

JS 44-TXND Reverse (Rev. 12/12)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44


Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
1(a)

(h)

(c)

II.

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a govermnent agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV.

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.


Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441 .
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If a related case exists, whether pending or closed, insert
the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. A case is related to this filing if the case: 1) involves some or all of the same
parties and is based on the same or a similar claim; 2) involves the same property, transaction, or event; 3) involves substantially similar issues of law
and fact; and/or 4) involves the same estate in a bankruptcy appeal.
Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.