Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 21 PageID 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

CORY SEEGMILLER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY AND KATHLEEN
CURATOLO,

Case No. 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF

)

)
)
Defendant(s).
)
_________________________________________ )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The Plaintiff, Cory Seegmiller (“Seegmiller”) files this Civil Action and respectfully
request this Court to issue injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment and award damages for
violations of the United States Constitution, Florida Constitution, and Florida law by Defendants,
The School Board of Collier County, Florida (hereinafter “School Board” or “Board”) and
Kathleen Curatalo (hereinafter “Kathleen Curatalo” or “Curatalo”) and alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. This is an action for injunctive relief, declaratory relief and damages arising under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and is brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This is also an action for injunctive and declaratory relief
arising under Florida Statute §286.0114.
2.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). Each
and all of the acts alleged herein were done by Defendant in Collier County, Florida

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 21 PageID 40

under the color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, policies,
procedures, and law of the School Board and/or the State of Florida.
4. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment
Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, implemented through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, and
to issue injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
5. This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief regarding costs, including a
reasonable attorney’s fee, under 42 U.S.C. §1988 and Florida Statute §286.0114.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Cory Seegmiller is a natural born person who resides in Collier County, Florida.
7. Defendant School Board is the governing body for public schools in Collier County,
Florida, with the authority to sue and be sued, and was at all times material acting within
the course and scope of its authority and under color of law.
8. Kathleen Curatalo, is an individual over the age of 18 and resides in Collier County,
Florida within the Middle District of Florida.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
9. In 2013, the Florida legislature passed a law titled “Public Meetings; reasonable
opportunity to be heard; attorney fees.” It was recorded as Florida Statute 286.0114. It is
attached as Exhibit 1.
10. Florida Statute 286.0114(2) states that “Members of the public shall be given a
reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission[,]” and
that “This section does not prohibit a board or commission from maintaining orderly
conduct or proper decorum in a public meeting.”

2

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 21 PageID 41

11. The opportunity for public comment is subject to the rules of the board so long as those
rules only pertain to the areas listed in Florida Statute 286.0114(4).
12. Florida Statute 286.0114(4) allows the School Board to adopt rules to govern the
opportunity to be heard, but strictly limits rule adoption to only 4 areas, as follows: 1)
limit the amount of time; 2) require one spokesman from a faction instead of each
member of the faction; 3) prescribe procedures for an individual to express a desire to be
heard; and 4) designate a specified period of time for public comment.
13. Florida Statute 286.0114(5) states that “If a board adopts rules or policies in compliance
with this section and follows such rules or policies when providing an opportunity for
members of the public to be heard, the board or commission is deemed to be acting in
compliance with this section.”
14. The pertinent policy of the School Board is 0169.1 titled “Public Participation at Board
Meetings.” It was last revised in 2010, three years before Florida Statute 286.0114. It is
attached as Exhibit 2.
15. The School Board has not updated policy 0169.1 since the passing of the Public
Comment Statute.
16. Paragraph (G) of policy 0169.1 allows the presiding officer “to interrupt, warn, or
terminate a participant’s statement if the statement is “personally directed.”
17. This restriction allows the School Board to quash ALL criticism of its actions and the
actions of the superintendent regardless of the tone, language, and civility used to make
these criticisms.

3

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 4 of 21 PageID 42

18. On January 13, 2015, during School Board discussion and after the public portion of the
meeting had been closed, School Board member Julie Sprague brought several
propositions before the School Board.
19. Such propositions presented by Ms. Sprague on January 13, 2015 included: (i) holding a
special meeting of the School Board, (ii) School Board participation in master board
training, (iii) use of an independent consultant to act as a moderator/facilitator in the
event of a special meeting of the School Board, and (iv) the topics and scope of any
special meeting of the School Board to include among other things 1) the role of the
chairperson, 2) the role of the School Board members, 3) the role of the Superintendent,
and 4) public perceptions of dysfunction about the School Board that she alleged had
become prevalent in the community.
20. On January 13, 2015, during School Board discussion and after the public portion of the
meeting had been closed, School Board Chair Kathleen Curatolo also discussed the
propositions brought before the School Board by Ms. Sprague and raised a proposition on
how the School Board should decide when to set the date and time for the special
meeting.
21. On January 13, 2015, during School Board discussion and after the public portion of the
meeting had been closed, School Board Chair Kathleen Curatolo cited the issue of public
perceptions of School Board dysfunction, centering on allegations that School Board
member(s) improperly permitted parents and members of the community to inspect and
review textbooks, as a supporting basis for the propositions discussed by School Board
Chair, Kathy Curatolo, on January 13, 2015.

4

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 21 PageID 43

22. On January 13, 2015, during Board discussion and after the public portion of the meeting
had been closed, School Board Chair Kathleen Curatolo asked for and obtained
consensus for the Board to participate in master board training and authorize Ms.
Curatolo to file the paperwork necessary for Board participation in the same, which
official action had a financial impact and cost to taxpayers.
23. On January 13, 2015, during School Board discussion and after the public portion of the
meeting had been closed, School Board Chair Kathleen Curatolo asked for and obtained
consensus for the School Board to participate in and hold a special meeting of the School
Board.
24. On January 13, 2015, during School Board discussion and after the public portion of the
meeting had been closed, School Board Chair Kathy Curatolo asked for and obtained
consensus for the School Board to place the item of a special meeting of the School
Board on the February 10, 2015 next, regular School Board meeting to discuss and
decide, (i) the date and time for the special meeting, (ii) use of an independent consultant
to act as a moderator/facilitator in the event of a special meeting of the School Board, and
(iii) the topics and scope of any special meeting of the School Board.
25. On January 13, 2015, during School Board discussion and after the public portion of the
meeting had been closed, School Board Chair Kathleen Curatolo asked for and obtained
consensus for individual School Board members to provide, within the next two weeks,
to the Superintendent topics that School Board members would like to be added to the
agenda for the special meeting of the School Board.
26. The School Board took official action on the special meeting proposition before the
School Board on January 13, 2015, by voting by consensus to hold a special meeting.

5

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 6 of 21 PageID 44

27. The School Board took official action on the master board training proposition before the
Board on January 13, 2015, by voting by consensus to participate in master board training
and authorize Ms. Curatolo to file the paperwork necessary for School Board
participation in the same.
28. The School Board took official action on the other propositions before the School Board
on January 13, 2015 as alleged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 above.
29. At no time before or during the January 13, 2015 meeting and the official action taken by
the School Board on January 13, 2105 did the School Board allow for any opportunity to
be heard by members of the public on the proposition before the School Board deciding
whether or not to hold a special meeting.
30. At no time before or during the January 13, 2015 meeting and the official action taken by
the School Board on January 13, 2015 did the School Board allow any opportunity for
members of the public to be heard on the proposition before the Board regarding the
decision of whether to participate in master board training, and whether to authorize Ms.
Curatolo’s filing of the paperwork necessary for School Board participation in the same.
31. At no time before or during the January 13, 2015 meeting and the official action taken by
the School Board on January 13, 2015 did the School Board allow for any opportunity to
be heard by members of the public on the propositions before the School Board as
alleged in Paragraphs 23 and 24 above.
32. The January 20, 2015 School Board workshop/meeting was the first opportunity for the
public to comment on the School Board’s official action taken on January 13, 2015 and to
address, during the decision-making process, the remaining propositions brought before
the School Board by Ms. Sprague and Ms. Curatolo on January 13, 2015.

6

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 7 of 21 PageID 45

33. The remaining propositions brought before the School Board by Ms. Sprague and Ms.
Curatolo on January 13, 2015 as alleged in Paragraphs 23 and 24 above, were still before
the Board for consideration and decision-making at the time of the January 20, 2015
workshop/meeting.
34. Prior to the January 20, 2015 workshop/meeting, Seegmiller became aware of allegations
that the School District Superintendent had met with principals from around Collier
County and had misrepresented to them that two board members were stirring up parents
to review and censor curriculum, and that teachers should come to the January 20, 2015
board workshop to influence the School Board, comment on public perceptions of
dysfunction allegedly created by School Board member(s) improperly permitting parents
and members of the community to inspect and review textbooks, and to minimize
parental involvement.
35. A portion of such allegations came first-hand from a high-school student who had an
interaction with a teacher during class regarding the matter, which report deeply
concerned Seegmiller.
36. Seegmiller attended the January 20, 2015 workshop/meeting held by the School Board
covering the selection and review processes of curriculum in Collier County, for the
purpose of offering public comment on the propositions brought before the School Board
on January 13, 2015.
37. Seegmiller properly asked for and received recognition to make a public comment on
January 20, 2015 on the propositions before the School Board on January 13, 2015
including, without limitation, commenting on the allegations referenced in paragraphs 33
and 34 above, and the public perception that the Superintendent and other School District

7

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 8 of 21 PageID 46

staff members might be misusing authority and the public perception that the School
Board was shirking its duty to inspect and review textbooks/curriculum.
38. Seegmiller’s public comment on January 20, 2015 was directly related to the propositions
pending before the School Board as alleged in Paragraphs 23 and 24 above and the
official action taken by the School Board on January 13, 2015 as alleged in Paragraphs 25
through 27 above. Specifically, his public comments were intended to address the need
and underlying reasoning for a special meeting and master board training, the roles of the
Superintendent and the School Board in the curriculum-choosing process, and the
allegations of School Board dysfunction and misuse of power.
39. Furthermore, Seegmiller’s request for an investigation of the allegations referenced in
Paragraphs 33 and 35 above was a relevant and important topic to be added to the agenda
for the School Board to discuss at its special School Board meeting.
40. However, Seegmiller was repeatedly and frequently interrupted by the Chairperson,
Kathleen Curatolo, and told not to make remarks about School Board members or the
Superintendent and that Seegmiller must only speak about “issues and not people.”
41. During each interruption, Seegmiller raised an objection to the interruption, claiming a
First Amendment right.
42. The result of the interruptions and back-and-forth between Seegmiller and Kathleen
Curatolo regarding the violation of his rights and the improper censorship by the School
Board was that Seegmiller was denied a reasonable opportunity to give a public comment
and to be heard on propositions before the School Board.
43. Seegmiller stated during his public comments that he felt the School Board was censoring
his comments and others’ comments.

8

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 9 of 21 PageID 47

44. The School Board’s General Counsel, Jonathan Fishbane, interrupted Seegmiller and said
that there was no issue of censorship and that Seegmiller should express his general issue
of concern and not name individuals in his comment.
45. Seegmiller was harmed by this impedance of his public comment.
46. At no point when Seegmiller was interrupted by Kathleen Curatolo or Johnathan
Fishbane had Seegmiller engaged in any conduct that was disruptive or lacking in proper
decorum, nor did Kathleen Curatolo or Johnathan Fishbane, at any time, express to
Seegmiller that his comments were being interrupted because of any issue with his
conduct or decorum.
47. Throughout the public meeting numerous others were censored for criticizing the Board
and the Superintendent.
48. The censoring was only injected when it came to criticism of the Board or the
Superintendent.
49. Curatolo censored comments which were directed at members of the Board majority or
the School District Superintendent, but failed to censor personally directed statements at
others.
50. Further, Curatolo failed to censor abusive and obscene speech such as calling
Conservative commentators “Racist Bible Thumpers.”
51. The Board’s actions in censoring criticism were made with malicious intent.
52. The plaintiff has retained undersigned counsel and is obligated to pay a reasonable fee for
services.

COUNT I

9

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 10 of 21 PageID 48

FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- PLAINTIFF’S FREEDOM OF
SPEECH UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED
53. Seegmiller incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1- 52 by reference.
54. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in
conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the Board from abridging
Seegmiller’s freedom of speech.
55. The School Board’s actions and policies, on their face and as applied, deny Seegmiller the
ability to redress government action and/or improprieties though his protected freedom of
speech.
56. The School Board’s actions and policies, on their face and as applied, constitute an
unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
57. There is no compelling government interest sufficient to justify the School Board’s actions
in applying the policies and censorship in an unconstitutional manner against Seegmiller.
58. The School Board’s actions and policies, on their face and as applied, are not the least
restrictive means to accomplish any permissible government purpose sought to be served.
59. The School Board’s actions and policies, on their face and as applied, are not narrowly
tailored restrictions on free speech.
60. The School Board’s actions and policies, on their face and as applied, do not serve a
significant government interest.
61. The School Board’s actions and policies, on their face and as applied, do not leave open
ample alternative channels of effective communication.
62. The School Board’s actions and policies, on their face and as applied, are unreasonable,
and impose unjustifiable restrictions on constitutionally-protected speech.
63. The School Board’s actions and policies, on their face and as applied, unconstitutionally
chill and abridge the right of Seegmiller to engage in free speech guaranteed by the First
Amendment.

10

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 11 of 21 PageID 49

64. Seegmiller has no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of his most
cherished constitutional liberties.
65. As a direct and proximate result of the Board’s continuing violations of Seegmiller’s First
Amendment rights, Seegmiller has suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the
future direct and consequential damages, including but not limited to, the loss of his ability
to exercise his constitutional rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth herein.

COUNT II
FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED
66. Seegmiller incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1- 52 by reference.
67. Seegmiller’s right to equal protection under the laws is protected by the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
68. Seegmiller is class of one under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution.
69. The School Board has intentionally treated Seegmiller differently from others who are
similarly situated.
70. The School Board’s actions, policies, and censoring of public commentary, on their face
and as applied, are unconstitutional abridgements of Seegmiller’s affirmative right to equal
protection of the laws, because they specifically infringe on Seegmiller’s freedom of
speech.
71. The School Board’s actions, policies, and censoring of public commentary, on their face
and as applied, are unconstitutional abridgements of Seegmiller’s right to equal protection
of the law because the Board treats Seegmiller differently from other similarly situated
individuals that expressed commentary during the same meeting.
11

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 12 of 21 PageID 50

72. The School Board’s actions, policies, and censoring of public commentary, on their face
and as applied, are not supported by a compelling governmental interest sufficient to justify
the punishment against Seegmiller.
73. The School Board’s actions, policies, and censoring of public commentary, on their face
and as applied, are not the least restrictive means to accomplish any permissible
government purpose sought to be served.
74. The School Board’s actions, policies, and censoring of public commentary, on their face
and as applied, do not serve a significant government interest.
75. The School Board’s actions, policies, and censoring of public commentary, on their face
and as applied, do not leave open ample alternative channels of communication.
76. The School Board’s actions, policies, and censoring of public commentary, on their face
and as applied, are irrational and unreasonable, and impose irrational and unjustifiable
restrictions on constitutionally protected speech.
77. Seegmiller has no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of his most
cherished constitutional liberties.
78. There is no legitimate government interest in restraining all personally directed comments.
79. There is no rational basis in furthering the Board’s policy of restricting all personally
directed comments.
80. As a direct and proximate result of Board’s continuing violations of Seegmiller’s equal
protection rights, Seegmiller has suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the
future, direct and consequential damages, including but not limited to, the loss of his ability
to exercise his constitutional rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth herein.

COUNT III
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT
FLORIDA STATUTE 286.0114 WAS VIOLATED
12

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 13 of 21 PageID 51

81. Seegmiller incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1- 52 by reference.
82. Seegmiller contends that the School Board violated Florida Statute 286.0114 on January
13, 2015, by failing to allow any public comment before taking official action by
consensus vote to:
a.

hold a special meeting,

b. hold master board training and authorize Curatolo to file the paperwork necessary
for School Board participation in the same; and
c. take official action on the other propositions before the School Board on January
13, 2015 as alleged in Paragraphs 23 and 24 above.
83. Seegmiller contends that the Board also violated Florida Statute 286.0114 by denying
him a reasonable opportunity to give his comments on January 20, 2015.
84. Seegmiller contends that his comments on January 20, 2015, were directly related to the
Board’s proposition that it find topics to discuss in its special meeting which address the
perceived dysfunction of the Board.
85. Seegmiller further contends that the Board’s policy allowing them to restrain speech that
is “personally directed,” as it has been applied, violates Florida Statute 286.0114 .
86. The relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice or the answer to an inquiry born
of curiosity.
87. There is a practical need for this declaration to determine Seegmiller’s rights under
Florida Statute 286.0114 in light of the Board’s application of its own policy.
88. The declaration deals with a present, ascertained or ascertainable set of facts.
89. Seegmiller’s right is dependent on the facts or the law applicable to the facts.
90. Seegmiller has an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the subject matter.
13

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 14 of 21 PageID 52

91. The antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the court by proper process.
92. Seegmiller has had to retain the undersigned attorney and has obligated to pay reasonable
attorney fees.
93. Seegmiller is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 286.0114(7)(a).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth herein.

COUNT IV
FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO
FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED
94. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1- 52 by reference.
95. Article I, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution states that “[e]very person may speak,
write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that
right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”
96. The School Board is an agency empowered by the Florida Constitution and is subject to
the provisions of the Constitution.
97. The School Board’s policy of restraining all comment that is “personally directed”
violates the Florida Constitution’s guarantee of the right of free speech.
98. One can make a “personally directed” comment without being uncivil or violating basic
norms of decorum. Therefore, the Board’s policy violates the Florida Constitution in that
it is overly broad and restrains both protected and unprotected speech.
99. Seegmiller contends that public servants may not restrain all speech that criticizes them
directly and the Florida Constitution’s guarantee of free speech exists to stop this and
other practices that are considered to be dictatorial and undesirable in Florida.
100.

There is a bona fide, actual need to for this declaration as Seegmiller is now

uncertain what his rights are to speak at Collier County School Board meetings in light of
the
14

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 15 of 21 PageID 53

Board’s restraint of public comment under Board Policy 0169.1 and his perceived right
under Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution.
101. The declaration deals with a present, ascertained or ascertainable set of facts.
102. Seegmiller’s right of free speech is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to
the facts.
103. Seegmiller has an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the subject
matter.
104. The antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the court by proper process.
105. The declaration is not merely giving legal advice or answering a question born of
curiosity.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth herein.

COUNT VDECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD POLICY
0169.1 IS OVERLY BROAD AND VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT
106. Seegmiller incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1- 52 by reference.
107. School Board Policy 0169.1(g) states: “The presiding officer may: (1) interrupt, warn, or
terminate a participant’s statement when the statement is too lengthy, personally directed,
abusive, obscene, or irrelevant.”
108. The Policy is overly broad, in violation of the First Amendment, because it provides
unfettered application of the policy by the Board in limiting and/or prohibiting
constitutionally protected speech.
109. The Board impermissibly suppresses lawful speech as a means to suppress unlawful
speech.
110. The policy, having been enforced by the Board Chair, Kathleen Curatalo, was enacted
15

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 16 of 21 PageID 54

under color of state law, and has deprived the Plaintiff of rights secured by the First
Amendment, as applied by the Fourteenth Amendment.
111. This Constitutional violation is causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate
remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth herein.
COUNT VIVIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH
AGAINST KATHLEEN CURATALO, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD CHAIR
112. Seegmiller incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1- 52 by reference.
113. In performing duties as a Board Chair, Kathleen Curatalo violated Seegmiller’s right to
free exercise of speech and his ability to petition the Board for a redress of grievances.
114. It is clearly established law in the United States and in the 11th Circuit that regardless of
the forum, a person has the First Amendment right to be free from viewpoint-based
discrimination.
115. Kathleen Curatalo knew, or should have known, that this right has been so clearly
established that in violating this right damages would result.
116. Defendant, Kathleen Curatalo, has a history of discriminatory conduct as it relates to
individuals exercising their right to free speech when critical of the School Board and/or
the Superintendent.
117. Kathleen Curatalo knew, or should have known, that her treatment of Seegmiller was
unconstitutional.
118. Seegmiller has suffered damages as a result of Kathleen Curatalo’s acts.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth herein.

16

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 17 of 21 PageID 55

COUNT VIIVIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST KATHLEEN
CURATALO, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD CHAIR
119. Seegmiller incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1- 52 by reference.
120. Seegmiller’s right to equal protection under the laws is protected by the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
121.

Seegmiller is class of one under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States

Constitution.
122.

In performing duties as a Board Chair, Kathleen Curatalo violated Seegmiller’s right

to Equal Protection of the Laws by discriminating against Seegmiller when she censored
Seegmiller’s personally directed public comments and failed to censor others who were
similarly situated and made personally directed comments.
123.

There is no legitimate government interest in Curatalo restraining all personally

directed comments.
124.

There is no rational basis in furthering the Board’s policy of restricting all

personally directed comments by Curatalo’s actions.
125. The discrimination Kathleen Curatlao was engaged in is a violation of the United States
Constitution and is clearly established in the United States and in the 11th Circuit.
126. Kathleen Curatalo knew, or should have known, that her treatment of Seegmiller was
unconstitutional.
127.

Seegmiller has suffered damages as a result of this act.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

17

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 18 of 21 PageID 56

1.

That this Court issue a preliminary injunction, enjoining the School Board, and its

officers, agents, employees, and all other persons acting in active concert with the School
Board, from continuing to censor citizen speech which is critical of government action or
inaction.
2.

That this Court issue a permanent injunction, enjoining the School Board, and its

officers, agents, employees, and all other persons acting in active concert with the School
Board, from continuing to censor citizen speech which is critical of government action or
inaction.
3.

That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that the “personally

directed’ provision of the Collier County School Board Policy 0169.1, on its face, violates
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
4.

That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that the “personally

directed” provision of Collier County School Board Policy 0169.1 violates the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution because it is impermissibly overly broad.
5.

That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that Seegmiller’s right to

free speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, was
violated by the School Board and its agents on January 20, 2015.
6.

That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that Seegmiller’s right to

equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution was violated by the School Board and its agents through a
discriminatory application of Collier County School Board Policy 0169.1 against
Seegmiller on January 20, 2015.
7.

That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that the Collier County

School Board violated Florida Statute 286.0114 by: a) not allowing any public comment
before taking official action on January 13, 2015; b) denying Seegmiller his right to a
reasonable opportunity to address, during the decision-making process, the remaining
propositions brought before the School Board by Ms. Sprague and Ms. Curatolo on
18

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 19 of 21 PageID 57

January 13, 2015; and c) the School Board’s application of its Policy 0169.1 which was
used to deny Seegmiller a reasonable right to be heard on propositions before the School
Board on the basis that Seegmiller’s comments were “personally directed” public
comments.
8.

That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that Collier County School

Board Policy 0169.1, on its face, violates Florida Statute 286.0114, as the policy has not
been updated to take into consideration the requirements of Florida Statute 286.0114, and
that the “personally directed statement” provision within Policy 0169.1 is contrary to the
limited powers granted to the School Board in proscribing citizen speech.
9.

That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that the Collier County

School Board Policy 0169.1, on its face, violates Article I, Section 4 of the Florida
Constitution.
10.

That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that the “personally

directed” provision of Policy 0169.1 violates Article 1, Section 4 of the Florida
Constitution because it is impermissibly overly broad.
11.

That this Court issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that Seegmiller’s right to

free speech guaranteed by Article 1, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution was violated by
the School Board and its agents.
12.

That this Court enter a declaratory judgment, declaring that Kathleen Curatolo, in

her individual capacity, violated Seegmiller’s right to free speech under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
13.

That this Court enter a declaratory judgment, declaring that Kathleen Curatolo, in

her individual capacity, violated Seegmiller’s right to equal protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by discriminating against
Seegmiller by censoring his use of personally directed speech during public comment at
the January 20, 2015 School Board workshop/meeting, while not similarly censoring

19

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 20 of 21 PageID 58

personally directed statements made by others who also made public comments at the
January 20, 2015 School Board workshop/meeting.
14.

That this Court enter judgment in favor of Seegmiller against Kathleen Curatolo in

her individual capacity, and award Seegmiller actual damages, punitive damages,
attorney’s fees and court costs.
15.

That this Court enter judgment in favor of Seegmiller against Kathleen Curatolo in

her individual capacity for violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and award Seegmiller
actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and court costs.
16.

That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal relations with

the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the force
and effect of final judgment.
17.

That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing this

Court’s order.
18.

That this Court award Plaintiff such damages as are just and appropriate under 42

U.S.C. 1983.
19.

That this Court award Plaintiff reasonable costs and expenses of this action,

including attorney’s fees, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 1988.
20.

That this Court award Seegmiller reasonable attorney’s fees, in accordance with

Florida Statute 286.0114(7)(a).
21.

That this Court grant such other and further relief as it deems equitable and just

under the circumstances.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues so triable as a matter of law.
Alan Hamisch, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff Seegmiller

20

 Case 2:15-cv-00087-SPC-DNF Document 5 Filed 02/24/15 Page 21 of 21 PageID 59

By: /s/ Alan. F. Hamisch
Alan Hamisch, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 088647
5659 Strand Court, Suite 108
Naples, Florida 34110
Tel: (239) 216-4783 Fax:(239) 206-4155
alan@hamischlaw.com
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I electronically filed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system on February 24, 2015 and a true and
correct copy of this document was sent on the 25th day of February, 2015 by U.S. Mail to the
parties indicated below:
The School Board of Collier County
c/o Kathleen Curatalo, Chair
5775 Osceola Trail
Naples, FL 34109

Alan Hamisch, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff Seegmiller

By: /s/ Alan. F. Hamisch
Alan Hamisch, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 088647
5659 Strand Court, Suite 108
Naples, Florida 34110
Tel: (239) 216-4783 Fax:(239) 206-4155
alan@hamischlaw.com

21

 Case Document 5-1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID 60
213/2015 Chapter 286 Section 0114 -2013 Florida Statutes- The Fbtida Senate EXHIBIT

The Florida Senate
2013 Florida Statutes

 

Title XIX Chapter 286 SECTION 0114
PUBLIC BUSINESS PUBLIC BUSINESS: Public meetings; reasonable
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS opportunity to be heard; attorney
fees.
Entire Chapter

 

 

 

 

286.0114 Public meetings; reasonable opportunity to be heard; attorney fees.?

(1) For purposes of this section, "board or commission? means a board or commission of any state agency or
authority or of any agency or authority of a county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision.

(2) Members of the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or
commission. The opportunity to be heard need not occur at the same meeting at which the board or commission takes
official action on the proposition if the opportunity occurs at a meeting that is during the decisionrnaking process and
is within reasonable proximity in time before the meeting at which the board or commission takes the official action.
This section does not prohibit a board or commission from maintaining orderly conduct or proper decorum in a public
meeting. The opportunity to be heard is subject to rules or policies adopted by the board or commission, as provided
in subsection (4).

(3) The requirements in subsection (2) do not apply to:

An of?cial act that must be taken to deal with an emergency situation affecting the public health, welfare, or
safety, it compliance with the requirements would cause an unreasonable delay in the ability of the board or
commission to act;

An official act involving no more than a ministerial act, including, but not limited to, approval of minutes and
ceremonial proclamations;

A meeting that is exempt from s.  or

A meeting during which the board or commission is acting in a quasi?judicial capacity. This paragraph does
not affect the right of a person to be heard as otherwise provided by law.

(4) Rules or policies of a board or commission which govern the opportunity to be heard are limited to those that:

Provide guidelines regarding the amount of time an individual has to address the board or commission;

Prescribe procedures for allowing representatives of groups or factions on a proposition to address the board
or commission, rather than all members of such groups or factions, at meetings in which a large number of individuals
wish to be heard;

Prescribe procedures or forms for an individual to use in order to inform the board or commission of a desire
to be heard; to indicate his or her support, opposition, or neutrality on a proposition; and to indicate his or her
designation of a representative to speak for him or her or his or her group on a proposition if he or she so chooses; or

Designate a specified period of time for public comment.

(5) If a board or commission adopts rules or policies in compliance with this section and follows Such rules or
policies when providing an opportunity for members of the public to be heard, the board or commission is deemed to
be acting in compliance with this section.

(6) A circuit court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction for the purpose of enforcing this section upon the filing of
an application for such injunction by a citizen of this state.

Whenever an action is filed against a board or commission to enforce this section, the court shall assess
reasonable attorney fees against such board or commission if the court determines that the defendant to such action
acted in violation of this section. The court may assess reasonable attorney fees against the individual filing such an
action if the court finds that the action was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. This paragraph does not apply to a state

14 112

Case Document 5-1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID 61
Chapter 286 Search 0114 - 2013 Fbiida Statutes?The Senate

attorney or his or her duly authorized assistants or an of?cer charged with enforcing this section.

Whenever a board or commission appeals a court order that has found the board or commission to have
violated this section, and such order is affirmed, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees for the appeal against
such board or commission.

(8) An action taken by a board or commission which is found to be in violation of this section is not void as a
result of that violation.

History.?s. 1, ch. 2013-227.

Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers
should be consulted for of?cial purposes.

Copyright 0 2000- 2015 State of Florida.

14

Case Document 5-2 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID 62
EXHIBIT

2l8I201 5

0169.1

The School Board of Comer County

Public Participation at Board Meetings

 

The School Board recognizes the value to school governance of public comment on
educational issues and the importance of allowing members of the public to express
themselves on school matters of community interest.

In order to permit the fair and orderly expression of such comment, the Board shall provide a
period for public participation at those public meetings of the Board during which action may
be taken and publish rules to govern such participation in Board meetings.

The presiding of?cer of each Board meeting at which public participation is permitted shall
administer the rules of the Board for its conduct.

The presiding of?cer shall be guided by the following rules:

A Public participation shall be permitted as indicated on the order of business and
before the Board takes cf?dal position on any action item under consideration.

B. Attendees must register their intention to participate in the public portion of the
meeting.

C. Participants must be recognized by the presiding of?cer and will be requested to
preface their comments by an announcement of their name.

D. Each statement made by a participant shall be limited to three (3) minutes
duration, unless changed by the presiding of?cer. Persons wil be recognized in the
order in which the requests were received.

E. All statements shall be directed to the presiding officer: no person may address or
question Board members individually. Staff members shall not be expected to
answer questions from the audience unless called upon by the Board Chair or the

Superintendent.
F. Tape or video recordings are permitted under the following conditions
1. No obstructions are created between the Board and the audience.
2. No intewiews are conducted in the meeting room while the Board is in
session.
3. No commentary. adjustment of equipment, or positioning of operators is

made that would distract either the Board or members of the audience
while the Board is in session.

G. The presiding of?cer may:

1. interrupt. warn, or terminate a participant's statement when the

112

Case Document 5-2 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID 63
2(612015 The School Board of CoherCounly

statement is too personally directed. abusive. obscene, or
irrelevant;

2. request any individual to leave the meeting when that person does not
observe reasonable decorum;

3. request the assistance of law enforcement of?cers in the removal of a
disorderly person when that person's conduct interferes with the orderly
progress of the meeting;

4. call for a recess or an adjournmentto another time when the lack of
public decorum so interferes with the orderly conduct of the meeting as
to warrant such action.

No Board action shall be taken on requests made during public discussion unless the Board
declares the matter to be an emergency in accordance with current law. Any other requests
that the Board chooses to take action on shall be placed on an agenda for a subsequent
meeting.

212