Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doe v. McKesson

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

December 16, 2019

OFFICER JOHN DOE, Police Officer, Plaintiff - Appellant

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

          Before JOLLY, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.


         We WITHDRAW the court's prior opinion of August 8, 2019, and substitute the following opinion.

         During a public protest against police misconduct in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, an unidentified individual hit Officer John Doe with a heavy object, causing him serious physical injuries. Following this incident, Officer Doe brought suit against "Black Lives Matter," the group associated with the protest, and DeRay Mckesson, one of the leaders of Black Lives Matter and the organizer of the protest. Officer Doe later sought to amend his complaint to add Black Lives Matter Network, Inc. and #BlackLivesMatter as defendants. The district court dismissed Officer Doe's claims on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and denied his motion to amend his complaint as futile. Because we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing the case against Mckesson on the basis of the pleadings, we REMAND for further proceedings relative to Mckesson. We further hold that the district court properly dismissed the claims against Black Lives Matter. We thus REVERSE in part, AFFIRM in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


         On July 9, 2016, a protest illegally blocked a public highway in front of the Baton Rouge Police Department headquarters.[1] This demonstration was one in a string of protests across the country, often associated with Black Lives Matter, concerning police practices. The Baton Rouge Police Department prepared by organizing a front line of officers in riot gear. These officers were ordered to stand in front of other officers prepared to make arrests. Officer Doe was one of the officers ordered to make arrests. DeRay Mckesson, associated with Black Lives Matter, was the prime leader and an organizer of the protest.

         In the presence of Mckesson, some protesters began throwing objects at the police officers. Specifically, protestors began to throw full water bottles, which had been stolen from a nearby convenience store. The dismissed complaint further alleges that Mckesson did nothing to prevent the violence or to calm the crowd, and, indeed, alleges that Mckesson "incited the violence on behalf of [Black Lives Matter]." The complaint specifically alleges that Mckesson led the protestors to block the public highway. The police officers began making arrests of those blocking the highway and participating in the violence.

         At some point, an unidentified individual picked up a piece of concrete or a similar rock-like object and threw it at the officers making arrests. The object struck Officer Doe's face. Officer Doe was knocked to the ground and incapacitated. Officer Doe's injuries included loss of teeth, a jaw injury, a brain injury, a head injury, lost wages, "and other compensable losses."

         Following the Baton Rouge protest, Officer Doe brought suit, naming Mckesson and Black Lives Matter as defendants. According to his complaint, the defendants are liable on theories of negligence, respondeat superior, and civil conspiracy. Mckesson subsequently filed two motions: (1) a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, asserting that Officer Doe failed to state a plausible claim for relief against Mckesson; and (2) a Rule 9(a)(2) motion, asserting that Black Lives Matter is not an entity with the capacity to be sued.

         Officer Doe responded by filing a motion to amend. He sought leave to amend his complaint to add factual allegations to his complaint and Black Lives Matter Network, Inc. and #BlackLivesMatter as defendants.


         The district court granted both of Mckesson's motions, treating the Rule 9(a)(2) motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and denied Officer Doe's motion for leave to amend, concluding that his proposed amendment would be futile. With respect to Officer Doe's claims against #BlackLivesMatter, the district court took judicial notice that it is a "hashtag" and therefore an "expression" that lacks the capacity to be sued. With respect to Officer Doe's claims against Black Lives Matter Network, Inc., the district court held that Officer Doe's allegations were insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief against this entity. Emphasizing the fact that Officer Doe attempted to add a social movement and a "hashtag" as defendants, the district court dismissed his case with prejudice. Officer Doe timely appealed.


         When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), we will not affirm dismissal of a claim unless the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017). "We take all factual allegations as true and construe the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Id. (citing Kelly v. Nichamoff, 868 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2017)). To survive, a complaint must consist of more than "labels and conclusions" or "naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). Instead, "the plaintiff must plead enough facts to nudge the claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 684 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680).[2]

         A district court's denial of a motion to amend is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 832 F.3d 586, 590 (5th Cir. 2016). However, where the district court's denial of leave to amend was based solely on futility, we instead apply a de novo standard of review identical in practice to the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. Id. When a party seeks leave from the court to amend and justice requires it, the district court should freely give it. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).


         We start with whether we have jurisdiction to hear this case, raising sua sponte its potential absence. Neither the district court nor any party addressed this issue in prior proceedings or on appeal. Officer Doe sued Mckesson and Black Lives Matter.[3] The complaint alleges that Black Lives Matter is a national unincorporated association, Doe v. Mckesson, 272 F.Supp.3d 841, 849 (M.D. La. 2017), which, for diversity purposes, is a citizen of every state where a member is a citizen, Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1258 (5th Cir. 1988). Officer Doe, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bore the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). But the complaint fails to allege with sufficiency the membership of Black Lives Matter.[4] Such failure to establish diversity jurisdiction normally warrants remand-if there was some reason to believe that jurisdiction exists, i.e., some reason to believe both that Black Lives Matter's citizenship could be demonstrated with a supplemented record and that it is diverse from the plaintiff-or dismissal of the case. See MidCap Media Fin., LLC v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 316 (5th Cir. 2019).

         Yet we need not resort to either here. Even assuming arguendo that Black Lives Matter were nondiverse and thus that the parties were nondiverse at the time of filing this lawsuit, such "lack of [diversity] jurisdiction can be cured when the non-diverse party is dismissed in federal court." 16 Front Street, L.L.C. v. Miss. Silicon, L.L.C., 886 F.3d 549, 556 (5th Cir. 2018). This "method of curing a jurisdictional defect ha[s] long been an exception to the time-of-filing rule." Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 572 (2004); see, e.g., Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 73 (1996) (holding that "diversity became complete" when a nondiverse party settled and was dismissed from the case and that therefore "[t]he jurisdictional defect was cured") (emphasis removed); McGlothin v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 925 F.3d 741, 744 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that the dismissal of nondiverse defendants for failure of service of process "created complete diversity; and, therefore, the district court had jurisdiction") (citations omitted).

         Here, the district court took judicial notice that Black Lives Matter was a social movement and therefore a non-juridical entity lacking the capacity to be sued. Doe, 272 F.Supp.3d at 850; see infra Part V.C. The court subsequently dismissed Black Lives Matter as a defendant. Doe, 272 F.Supp.3d at 850. If complete diversity did not exist before, this dismissal created the complete diversity (since Officer Doe and Mckesson are citizens of different states) necessary for jurisdiction in this case. For that reason, we have jurisdiction to hear this case.[5]



         We next address Officer Doe's claims against DeRay Mckesson. The district court did not reach the merits of Officer Doe's underlying state tort claims, but instead found that Officer Doe failed to plead facts that took Mckesson's conduct outside of the bounds of First Amendment protected speech and association. Because we ultimately find that Mckesson's conduct at this pleading stage was not necessarily protected by the First Amendment, we will begin by addressing the plausibility of Officer Doe's state tort claims. We will address each of Officer Doe's specific theories of liability in turn- vicarious liability, negligence, and civil conspiracy, beginning with vicarious liability.


         Louisiana Civil Code article 2320 provides that "[m]asters and employers are answerable for the damage occasioned by their servants and overseers, in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed." A "servant," as used in the Civil Code, "includes anyone who performs continuous service for another and whose physical movements are subject to the control or right to control of the other as to the manner of performing the service." Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co., 559 So.2d 467, 476 (La. 1990). Officer Doe's vicarious liability theory fails at the point of our beginning because he does not allege facts that support an inference that the unknown assailant "perform[ed] a continuous service" for, or that the assailant's "physical movements [were] subject to the control or right to control" of, Mckesson. Therefore, under the pleadings, Mckesson cannot be held liable under a vicarious liability theory.


         We now move on to address Officer Doe's civil conspiracy theory. Civil conspiracy is not itself an actionable tort. Ross v. Conoco, Inc., 828 So.2d 546, 552 (La. 2002). Instead, it assigns liability arising from the existence of an underlying unlawful act. Id. In order to impose liability for civil conspiracy in Louisiana, a plaintiff must prove that (1) an agreement existed with one or more persons to commit an illegal or tortious act; (2) the act was actually committed; (3) the act resulted in plaintiff's injury; and (4) there was an agreement as to the intended outcome or result. Crutcher-Tufts Res., Inc. v. Tufts, 992 So.2d 1091, 1094 (La. Ct. App. 2008); see also La. Civ. Code art. 2324. "Evidence of . . . a conspiracy can be actual knowledge, overt actions with another, such as arming oneself in anticipation of apprehension, or inferred from the knowledge of the alleged co-conspirator of the impropriety of the actions taken by the other co-conspirator." Stephens v. Bail Enf't, 690 So.2d 124, 131 (La. Ct. App. 1997).

         Officer Doe's complaint is vague about the underlying conspiracy to which Mckesson agreed, or with whom such an agreement was made. In his complaint, Officer Doe refers to a conspiracy "to incite a riot/protest." Disregarding Officer Doe's conclusory allegations, we find that Officer Doe has not alleged facts that would support a plausible claim that Mckesson can be held liable for his injuries on a theory of civil conspiracy. Although Officer Doe has alleged facts that support an inference that Mckesson agreed with unnamed others to demonstrate illegally on a public highway, he has not pled facts that would allow a jury to conclude that Mckesson colluded with the unknown assailant to attack Officer Doe or knew of the attack and specifically ratified it. The closest that Officer Doe comes to such an allegation is when he states that Mckesson was "giving orders" throughout the demonstration. But we cannot infer from this quite unspecific allegation that Mckesson ordered the unknown assailant to attack Officer Doe. Lacking an allegation of this pleading quality, Officer Doe's conspiracy claim must and does fail.


         Finally, we turn to Officer Doe's negligence theory. Officer Doe alleges that Mckesson was negligent for organizing and leading the Baton Rouge demonstration because he "knew or should have known" that the demonstration would turn violent. We agree as follows.

         Louisiana Civil Code article 2315 provides that "[e]very act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it." The Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted a "duty-risk" analysis for assigning tort liability under a negligence theory. This theory requires a plaintiff to establish that (1) the plaintiff suffered an injury; (2) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (3) the duty was breached by the defendant; (4) the conduct in question was the cause-in-fact of the resulting harm; and (5) the risk of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached. Lazard v. Foti, 859 So.2d 656, 659 (La. 2003). Whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty is a question of law. Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 752 So.2d 762, 766 (La. 1999); see Bursztajn v. United States, 367 F.3d 485, 489 (5th Cir. 2004) ("Under Louisiana law, the existence of a duty presents a question of law that 'varies depending on the facts, circumstances, and context of each case and is limited by the particular risk, harm, and plaintiff involved.'" (quoting Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 20 F.3d 154, 157 (5th Cir. 1994))). There is a "universal duty on the part of the defendant in negligence cases to use reasonable care so as to avoid injury to another." Boykin v. La. Transit Co., 707 So.2d 1225, 1231 (La. 1998). Louisiana courts elucidate specific duties of care based on consideration of

various moral, social, and economic factors, including the fairness of imposing liability; the economic impact on the defendant and on similarly situated parties; the need for an incentive to prevent future harm; the nature of defendant's activity; the potential for an unmanageable flow of litigation; the historical development of precedent; and the direction in which society and its institutions are evolving.

Posecai, 752 So.2d at 766.

         We first note that this case comes before us from a dismissal on the pleadings alone. In this context, we find that Officer Doe has plausibly alleged that Mckesson breached his duty of reasonable care in the course of organizing and leading the Baton Rouge demonstration. The complaint alleges that Mckesson planned to block a public highway as part of the protest. And the complaint specifically alleges that Mckesson was in charge of the protests and was seen and heard giving orders throughout the day and night of the protests. Blocking a public highway is a criminal act under Louisiana law. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:97. Indeed, the complaint alleges that Mckesson himself was arrested during the demonstration. It was patently foreseeable that the Baton Rouge police would be required to respond to the demonstration by clearing the highway and, when necessary, making arrests. Given the intentional lawlessness of this aspect of the demonstration, Mckesson should have known that leading the demonstrators onto a busy highway was likely to provoke a confrontation between police and the mass of demonstrators, yet he ignored the foreseeable danger to officers, bystanders, and demonstrators, and notwithstanding, did so anyway.

         By ignoring the foreseeable risk of violence that his actions created, Mckesson failed to exercise reasonable care in conducting his demonstration. This is not, as the dissenting opinion contends, a "duty to protect others from the criminal activities of third persons." See Posecai, 752 So.2d at 766. Louisiana does not recognize such a duty. It does, however, recognize a duty not to negligently cause a third party to commit a crime that is a foreseeable consequence of negligence. See Brown v. Tesack, 566 So.2d 955 (La. 1990). The former means a business owner has no duty to provide security guards in its parking lot if there is a very low risk of crime. See Posecai, 752 So.2d at 770. The latter means a school can be liable when it negligently disposes of flammable material in an unsecured dumpster and local children use the liquid to burn another child. See Brown, 566 So.2d at 957. That latter rule applies here too: Mckesson owed Doe a duty not to negligently precipitate the crime of a third party. And a jury could plausibly find that a violent confrontation with a police officer was a foreseeable effect of negligently directing a protest.[6]

         Officer Doe has also plausibly alleged that Mckesson's breach of duty was the cause-in-fact of Officer Doe's injury and that the injury was within the scope of the duty breached by Mckesson. It may have been an unknown demonstrator who threw the hard object at Officer Doe, but by leading the demonstrators onto the public highway and provoking a violent confrontation with the police, Mckesson's negligent actions were the "but for" causes of Officer Doe's injuries. See Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So.2d 1032, 1052 (La. 1992) ("To meet the cause-in-fact element, a plaintiff must prove only that the conduct was a necessary antecedent of the accident, that is, but for the defendant's conduct, the incident probably would not have occurred."). Furthermore, as the purpose of imposing a duty on Mckesson in this situation is to prevent foreseeable violence to the police and bystanders, Officer Doe's injury, as alleged in the pleadings, was within the scope of the duty of care allegedly breached by Mckesson.

         The amended complaint only bolsters these conclusions. It specifically alleges that Mckesson led protestors down a public highway in an attempt to block the interstate. The protestors followed. During this unlawful act, Mckesson knew he was in violation of law and livestreamed his arrest. Finally, the plaintiff's injury was suffered during this unlawful action. The amended complaint alleges that it was during this struggle of the protestors to reach the interstate that Officer Doe was struck by a piece of concrete or rock-like object. It is an uncontroversial proposition of tort law that intentionally breaking, and encouraging others to break, the law is relevant to the reasonableness of one's actions.

         We iterate what we have previously noted: Our ruling at this point is not to say that a finding of liability will ultimately be appropriate. At the motion to dismiss stage, however, we are simply required to decide whether Officer Doe's claim for relief is sufficiently plausible to allow him to proceed to discovery. We find that it is.


         Having concluded that Officer Doe has stated a plausible claim for relief against Mckesson under state tort law, we will now take a step back and address the district court's determination that Officer Doe's complaint should be dismissed based on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made clear that "[t]he First Amendment does not protect violence." N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 (1982). Nonetheless, the district court dismissed the complaint on First Amendment grounds, reasoning that "[i]n order to state a claim against Mckesson to hold him liable for the tortious act of another with whom he was associating during the demonstration, Plaintiff would have to allege facts that tend to demonstrate that Mckesson 'authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious activity.'" Doe, 272 F.Supp.3d at 847 (quoting Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 927). The district court then went on to find that there were no plausible allegations that Mckesson had done so in his complaint.

         The district court appears to have assumed that in order to state a claim that Mckesson was liable for his injuries, Officer Doe was required to allege facts that created an inference that Mckesson directed, authorized, or ratified the unknown assailant's specific conduct in attacking Officer Doe. This assumption, however, does not fit the situation we address today. Even if we assume that Officer Doe seeks to hold Mckesson "liable for the unlawful conduct of others" within the meaning of Claiborne Hardware, the First Amendment would not require dismissal of Officer Doe's complaint. 458 U.S. at 927. In order to counter Mckesson's First Amendment defense at the pleading stage, Officer Doe simply needed to plausibly allege that his injuries were one of the "consequences" of "tortious activity," which itself was "authorized, directed, or ratified" by Mckesson in violation of his duty of care. See id. ("[A] finding that [the defendant] authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious activity would justify holding him responsible for the consequences of that activity."). Our discussion above makes clear that Officer Doe's complaint does allege that Mckesson directed the demonstrators to engage in the criminal act of occupying the public highway, which quite consequentially provoked a confrontation between the Baton Rouge police and the protesters, and that Officer Doe's injuries were the foreseeable result of the tortious and illegal conduct of blocking a busy highway.

         We focus here on the fact that Mckesson "directed . . . specific tortious activity" because we hold that Officer Doe has adequately alleged that his injuries were the result of Mckesson's own tortious conduct in directing an illegal and foreseeably violent protest. In Mckesson's petition for rehearing, he expresses concern that the panel opinion permits Officer Doe to hold him liable for the tortious conduct of others even though Officer Doe merely alleged that he was negligent, and not that he specifically intended that violence would result. We think that Mckesson's criticisms are misplaced. We perceive no constitutional issue with Mckesson being held liable for injuries caused by a combination of his own negligent conduct and the violent actions of another that were foreseeable as a result of that negligent conduct. The permissibility of such liability is a standard aspect of state law. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 19 (2010) ("The conduct of a defendant can lack reasonable care insofar as it foreseeably combines with or permits the improper conduct of the plaintiff or a third party."). There is no indication in Claiborne Hardware or subsequent decisions that the Supreme Court intended to restructure state tort law by eliminating this principle of negligence liability.

         A close reading of Claiborne Hardware makes this clear. In that case, the Mississippi Supreme Court had found defendants liable for malicious interference with plaintiff's business when they executed a sustained boycott against white-owned businesses for the purpose of securing "equal rights and opportunities for Negro citizens." See Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 899 (internal quotations omitted). That holding depended on the conclusion that "force, violence, or threats" were present. See id. at 895 (citing 393 So.2d 1290, 1301 (Miss. 1980)). This was a departure from the holding of the state chancery court. As the United States Supreme Court clarified, "[t]he Mississippi Supreme Court did not sustain the chancellor's imposition of liability on a theory that state law prohibited a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott." Id. at 915. This distinction is key: Before the United States Supreme Court, the only unlawful activities at issue involved "force, violence, or threats." If the "force, violence, [and] threats" had been removed from the boycott, the remaining conduct would not have been tortious at all.

         This posture is central to understanding what Claiborne Hardware did, and more importantly, did not, hold. When Claiborne Hardware speaks of violence, it speaks of the only unlawful activity at issue in the case. Consider its observation that "[w]hile the State legitimately may impose damages for the consequences of violent conduct, it may not award compensation for the consequences of nonviolent, protected activity." Id. at 918. It could not award compensation for the consequences of nonviolent activity because the only potentially tortious conduct at issue was violent. Indeed, the court expressly declined to reach the question of how it would have ruled if the nonviolent aspects of the boycott had been found to be tortious violations of an appropriately tailored state law. See id. at 915 n.49.

         Yet the dissenting opinion reads Claiborne Hardware as creating a broad categorical rule: "Claiborne Hardware . . . insulates nonviolent protestors from liability for others' conduct when engaging in political expression, even intentionally tortious conduct, not intended to incite immediate violence." How does it reach this conclusion? It relies on the Claiborne Hardware chancery court opinion that grounded liability in nonviolent protest. But the Mississippi Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court grounded liability solely in the presence of "force, violence or threats." Id. at 895. The United States Supreme Court did not invent a "violence/nonviolence distinction" when it explained that "[w]hile the State legitimately may impose damages for the consequences of violent conduct, it may not award compensation for the consequences of nonviolent, protected activity." Id. at 918. It merely applied black-letter tort law: Because the only tortious conduct in Claiborne Hardware was violent, no nonviolent conduct could have proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. See id. ("Only those losses proximately caused by unlawful conduct may be recovered.").

         For the same reason, the Claiborne Hardware opinion makes frequent reference to unlawful conduct when, under the dissenting opinion's view, it should have spoken of violence. See, e.g., id. at 920 ("For liability to be imposed by reason of association alone, it is necessary to establish that the group itself possessed unlawful goals and that the individual held a specific intent to further those illegal aims."); id. at 925 ("There is nothing unlawful in standing outside a store and recording names."); id. at 926 ("Unquestionably, these individuals may be held responsible for the injuries that they caused; a judgment tailored to the consequences of their unlawful conduct may be sustained."); id. at 927 ("There are three separate theories that might justify holding Evers liable for the unlawful conduct of others."); id. at 933 ("At times the difference between lawful and unlawful collective action may be identified easily by reference to its purpose."). In every instance, if the Court were creating a violence/nonviolence distinction it would have replaced "unlawful" with "violent." It did not, because it created no such demarcation. Rather, it addressed the case before it, where the only tortious conduct was violent.[7]

         This supposed violence/nonviolence distinction also does not square with the case law. Take New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). That case held that a public officer cannot "recover[] damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'-that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Id. at 279-80. But defamation is a nonviolent tort, and statements made about public officers are often shouted during political protests. If the dissenting opinion's interpretation is correct, then it would seem that even the narrow "actual malice" exception to immunity was eliminated by Claiborne Hardware, at least for statements made during a protest.

         Neither do recent cases vindicate this understanding. The Seventh Circuit examined a boycott similar to the one in Claiborne Hardware, this time a boycott by a union of a hotel and those doing business with the hotel. See 520 S. Mich. Ave. Assocs., Ltd. v. Unite Here Local 1, 760 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2014). The court found that it was "undisputed that the Union delegations all attempted to communicate a message on a topic of public concern." Id. at 723. But the court nonetheless held that the boycotters could be found liable if they had crossed the line into illegal coercion, because "prohibiting some of the Union's conduct under the federal labor laws would pose no greater obstacle to free speech than that posed by ordinary trespass and harassment laws." Id. The court's benchmark for liability was illegality, not violence. The court concluded that if "the Union's conduct in this case is equivalent to secondary picketing, and inflicts the same type of economic harm, it too may be prohibited without doing any harm to First Amendment liberties." Id. The dissenting opinion cannot be squared with this outcome.

         Finally, the violence/nonviolence distinction does not make sense. Imagine protesters speaking out on a heated political issue are marching in a downtown district. As they march through the city, a protester jaywalks. To avoid the jaywalker, a car swerves off the street, and the driver is seriously injured. If the dissenting opinion's interpretation of Claiborne Hardware is correct, the First Amendment provides an absolute defense to liability for the jaywalker in a suit by the driver. The dissenting opinion says that "preventing tortious interference is not a proper justification for restricting free speech (unlike preventing violence)" because Claiborne Hardware cemented a "violence/nonviolence distinction." The theory seems to be that because tortious interference is nonviolent, it cannot be tortious if done for a political reason. So too with every nonviolent tort? What about nonviolent criminal offenses done for a political reason? The dissenting opinion does not seem to believe that engaging in a protest provides a protestor immunity for violating La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:97. What is the logic behind immunizing protestors from nonviolent civil liability while retaining their nonviolent criminal liability?[8]

         We of course acknowledge that Mckesson's negligent conduct took place in the context of a political protest. It is certainly true that "the presence of activity protected by the First Amendment imposes restraints on the grounds that may give rise to damages liability and on the persons who may be held accountable for those damages." Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 916-17. But Claiborne Hardware does not insulate the petitioner from liability for his own negligent conduct simply because he, and those he associated with, also intended to communicate a message. See id. at 916 ("[T]he use of weapons, gunpowder, and gasoline may not constitutionally masquerade under the guise of advocacy." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Furthermore, although we do not understand the petitioner to be arguing that the Baton Rouge police violated the demonstrators' First Amendment rights by attempting to remove them from the highway, we note that the criminal conduct allegedly ordered by Mckesson was not itself protected by the First Amendment, as Mckesson ordered the demonstrators to violate a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction by blocking the public highway. See Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984) (reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions do not violate the First Amendment). As such, no First Amendment protected activity is suppressed by allowing the consequences of Mckesson's conduct to be addressed by state tort law.

         Thus, on the pleadings, which must be read in a light most favorable to Officer Doe, the First Amendment is not a bar to Officer Doe's negligence theory. The district court erred by dismissing Officer Doe's complaint-at the pleading stage-as barred by the First Amendment.[9] We emphasize that this means only that, given the facts that Doe alleges, he could plausibly succeed on this claim. We make no statement (and we cannot know) whether he will.


         Now we turn our attention to whether Officer Doe has stated a claim against Black Lives Matter. The district court took judicial notice that "'Black Lives Matter,' as that term is used in the Complaint, is a social movement that was catalyzed on social media by the persons listed in the Complaint in response to the perceived mistreatment of African-American citizens by law enforcement officers." Based on this conclusion, the district court held that Black Lives Matter is not a "juridical person" capable of being sued. See Ermert, 559 So.2d at 474. We first address the district court's taking of judicial notice, then Black Lives Matter's alleged capacity to be sued.

         Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides that a court may take judicial notice of an "adjudicative fact" if the fact is "not subject to reasonable dispute" in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned. Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). "Rule 201 authorizes the court to take notice only of 'adjudicative facts,' not legal determinations." Taylor v. Charter Med. Corp., 162 F.3d 827, 831 (5th Cir. 1998). In Taylor, we held that another court's state-actor determination was not an "adjudicative fact" within the meaning of Rule 201 because "[w]hether a private party is a state actor for the purposes of § 1983 is a mixed question of fact and law and is thus subject to our de novo review." Id. at 830-31. We further held that the state-actor determination was not beyond reasonable dispute where it "was, in fact, disputed by the parties" in the related case. Id. at 830.

         We think that the district court was incorrect to take judicial notice of a mixed question of fact and law when it concluded that Black Lives Matter is a "social movement, rather than an organization or entity of any sort." The legal status of Black Lives Matter is not immune from reasonable dispute; and, indeed, it is disputed by the parties-Doe claiming that Black Lives Matter is a national unincorporated association, and Mckesson claiming that it is a movement or at best a community of interest. This difference is sufficient under our case law to preclude judicial notice.

         We should further say that we see the cases relied on by the district court as distinguishable. Each deals with judicial notice of an aspect of an entity, not its legal form. See United States v. Parise, 159 F.3d 790, 801 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding that the court could take judicial notice of the aims and goals of a movement); Atty. Gen. of U.S. v. Irish N. Aid. Comm., 530 F.Supp. 241, 259- 60 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (stating the court could take "notice that the IRA is a 'Republican movement,' at least insofar as it advocates a united Ireland" (emphasis added)); see also Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 376 n.13 (1964) (noting that "[t]he lower court took judicial notice of the fact that the Communist Party of the United States . . . was a part of the world Communist movement" (emphasis added)).

         Now, we move on to discuss the merits of Officer Doe's contention that Black Lives Matter is a suable entity. He alleges that Black Lives Matter "is a national unincorporated association with chapter [sic] in many states." Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), the capacity of an entity "to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located." Under Article 738 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, "an unincorporated association has the procedural capacity to be sued in its own name." The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that "an unincorporated association is created in the same manner as a partnership, by a contract between two or more persons to combine their efforts, resources, knowledge or activities for a purpose other than profit or commercial benefit." Ermert, 559 So.2d at 473. "Interpretation of a contract is the determination of the common intent of the parties." La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2045. To show intent, "the object of the contract of association must necessarily be the creation of an ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.