Oregon city fights Stabbin' Wagon nonprofit's conspiracy lawsuit

EUGENE, Ore. (CN) — An Oregon city implored a federal judge on Tuesday to toss claims that it targeted and surveilled a harm reduction nonprofit after it received a state grant to open a peer respite center in the county.

“How do you show the city ratified unconstitutional conduct when all you have are two police officers allegedly surveilling ahead of planned protesting? There’s just nothing that was ratified there,” said Zachariah Allen, attorney with Hart Wagner representing Medford and the city defendants.

The Stabbin’ Wagon, along with its employees Melissa Jones and Samantha Strong, sued Medford and a handful of city employees in September.

The plaintiffs, in their amended complaint, described Medford as having a “history of a sundown town policy, anti-vagrancy laws and intense public policy influence by law enforcement.”

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.

After it received a $1.5 million grant from the Oregon Health Authority to open a center in the county, 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 raised claims for First Amendment retaliation, conspiracy to violate civil rights and accused the city of having a policy of violating the group’s constitutional rights.

However, the city argued before U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, a Joe Biden appointee, that the Stabbin’ Wagon didn’t have the evidence to support any of their claims. Plus, it argued that the city defendants had a right to counter-speech.

“City defendants, who were elected to public office in Medford and advance the policies and positions they see fit — they’re allowed to talk to the media and they’re allowed to advance their own views. That’s also protected activity,” Allen said. “It’s our position that ‘Free speech for me, but not for thee,’ is just not sufficient to plausibly state a claim.”

The plaintiffs also argue they are advocates for people with disabilities — specifically those with substance use disorder and serious mental illness — which is a protected class.

But the city says that because the plaintiffs are not themselves members of that protected class, they cannot bring those claims.

The Stabbin’ Wagon also named Ryan Mallory as a defendant, a man who operates the “Jackson County Scanner – Oregon” Facebook group. The nonprofit accused Mallory of doxing, harassing and intimidating the Stabbin’ Wagon and its employees and conspiring with local law enforcement and city officials. Mallory rejected the contention.

“There is no intent, alleged or identified, to deprive disabled individuals of constitutional or federal rights or any rights whatsoever,” said Casey Murdock, Mallory’s attorney. “This is purely a political issue about whether this entity is properly serving their clientele, which includes some disabled individuals.”

The Stabbin’ Wagon argued Mallory was liable under the conspiracy claim since he had used the same language as city employees to describe the Stabbin’ Wagon and then later posted the home addresses of Stabbin’ Wagon employees.

But Kasubhai pushed back.

“What you’re describing is a situation in which every troll out there in the world is now subject to 1985 claims,” Kasubhai said. “I’m having a hard time reconciling this idea that speech, however one might consider it to be reprehensible, is still protected.”

The plaintiffs also argued that the court could consider evidence that city law enforcement maintains a dossier of the nonprofit’s political activity and had previously arrested its employees without probable cause at its outreach events. Such monitoring is the basis of an ongoing state lawsuit between the parties, in which the plaintiffs accused Medford of illegal protest surveillance.

“An intent to retaliate is almost always going to be circumstantial,” said Marriane Dugan, attorney representing the plaintiffs.

Alicia LeDuc Montgomery, another attorney representing the plaintiffs, argued there is precedent to allow a party to bring a claim on behalf of a protected class.

Both sides have time to submit supplemental authority briefs to Kasubhai before he returns a decision.