Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

FRANCIS PAUL RIPP,
Plaintiff,

v.
JACK BURRELL, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUALLY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO:
___________________

COMPLAINT
JURISDICTION

1. This action is brought primarily pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988, as well as the
First Amendment and the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction of the primary claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1334. This action also alleges certain claims based is state law. Plaintiff
requests this court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over said claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367 in that the state claims are so related to the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s
federal question claims they form part of the same case or controversy.

VENUE
2. Venue is proper in this district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b). The
primary defendant, Jack Burrell, resides within the city limits of the City of Fairhope,

Page 1 of 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 2 of 11

which is within this district and division. The actions at issue took place within the
district and division.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Francis Paul Ripp (“the Plaintiff”), is a resident of the City of Fairhope.
4. Defendant City Council President, Jack Burrell, both in his official and individual
capacity.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. The City of Fairhope (“the City”) has two regularly scheduled council meetings a month.
The City video records their council meetings.
6. The Council President presides over council meetings.
7. On August 28, 2017, the City Council had the second meeting of the regularly held
meetings for the month of August. Exhibit 1 is a certified copy from the City Clerk of
Fairhope of the video of the August 28, 2017, meeting.
8. The Plaintiff was in attendance at this City Council meeting.
9. The Plaintiff, a resident of the City and likewise a tax payer, by nature has standing to
speak at public council meetings held in the City.
10. The Plaintiff, during the public participation portion for items not on the agenda,
attempted to approach the podium to speak.
11. The Plaintiff had not yet started speaking when The City Council President denied the
Plaintiff to speak.
Page 2 of 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 3 of 11

12. The City Council President then went into an outrageous verbal assault against the
Plaintiff.
13. The City Council members gave tacit approval of this verbal barrage by saying nothing
and doing nothing to stop it.
14. During this tirade the City Council President called for the chief of Police to escort the
Plaintiff back to his seat.
15. Before he finished his rant, the Council President threatened the Plaintiff by stating “You
say another word and you’re going to jail”. The City Council President was also acting
beyond his official capacity when he threatened with this statement.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1587
16. Plaintiff, incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs as if fully restated here.
17. The Defendant violated the City’s Council Rules of Procedure as articulated in Ordinance
1587 (see exhibit).
18. This Ordinance on its face is clear. Section 12 of Ordinance 1587 allows for citizen
participation.
19. The citizens of the City have a right granted by City Ordinance 1587, the First, and
Fourteenth amendments of Constitution of the United States.
20. The Defendant knew or should have known that the Plaintiff had a right to speak.
21. The Plaintiff was berated in front all of those who present.
22. The City Council President embarrassed and humiliated the Plaintiff, causing the Plaintiff
to suffer grave emotional stress.

Page 3 of 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 4 of 11

23. Clearly the City Council President was acting beyond his presumption of qualified
immunity.
24. The City Council President’s language and his tone and tenor were clearly an attack on
the Plaintiff personally as well as an affront against civil liberty.
25. Whether, the City Council President’s actions were carried out under the color of law or
as an individual citizen the result was the same; the City Council President denied the
Plaintiff’s right to speak
WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the
Defendant for such compensatory and punitive damages as may be assessed, along with pre and
post judgment interest, costs, and attorney fees, as applicable and all other further or different
relief that the Court may allow.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION AND DEPROVATION
OF RIGHTS GUARENTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

26. Plaintiff adopts, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-25 above as fully
set forth herein.
27. Plaintiff is cognizant the City Council President has the continuing ability to maintain
decorum at council meetings by ordering disruptive individuals to immediately leave the
City Council chambers.
28. Maintaining decorum does not provide for prospective exclusions from a forum intended
for public discourse and debate.

Page 4 of 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 5 of 11

29. Before attempting to speak, the Plaintiff sat quietly in the back of the council chambers
for one hour without saying a word.
30. Plaintiff disturbed no one, his conduct offended no one, and his actions incited no
violence.
31. The Plaintiff can’t accept the City Council President or any city official ordering him out
of the building.
32. No federal appellate court opinion has ever held that the First Amendment permitted such
exclusions from City Council sessions.
33. Mere speculation that some persons may make others feel unsafe is an insufficient basis
upon which to erect a governmental bar to speaking.
34. The Defendant denied the Plaintiff his right to speak.
35. The Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s First Amendment right of free speech.
36. A permanent injunction will protect the First Amendment rights of the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals without unduly burdening defendants.
37. A contrary holding might lead to officials shutting the government’s doors to those
whose viewpoints the government finds annoying, distasteful, or unpopular. This could
become a convenient guise for censoring criticisms directed at the more powerful.
38. There is little doubt that the purpose of denying the Plaintiff the right to speak was
outright censorship.
39. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff was going to threaten anyone with violence or
incite others to violence.
40. The Plaintiff was clearly denied his First Amendment right of free speech.

Page 5 of 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 6 of 11

41. Our democratic republic is not so fragile and our First Amendment is not so weak to bar a
71-year-old Vietnam veteran a moment or two to express his viewpoint.
42. The Plaintiff could have intended to come up to the microphone and thank the City
Council for the new internet portals at the library, but through the outrageous conduct of
the City Council President, we shall never know.
43. When the Plaintiff’s comments are excluded, the rights of the republic and the First
Amendment are in peril.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED the Plaintiff demands judgment against the
Defendant for such compensatory and punitive damages as may be assessed, along with pre and
post judgment interest, costs and attorney fees as applicable. Further, the Plaintiff demands a
permanent injunction against the Defendant and any and all further or different relief that this
court sees fit.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
DEPROVATION OF RIGHTS
GUARENTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

44. Plaintiff adopts, realleges, and incorporates by reference by reference paragraphs 1-43 as
fully set out above.
45. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution expands the rights of its
citizens to the states.
46. Any council member comment will be weighed by the statutory definition as to whether
it relates to public business or public policy over which the governmental body has
supervision and control.
Page 6 of 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 7 of 11

47. The issue of supervision and control has generally been held to be a fact issue for the
determination of the trier of fact.
48. It should also be expected that any comment or remark from a city council member or
high official with the city is a matter of special interest to the public.
49. The City Council President has control of all city council meetings.
50. On August 28, 2017, the Defendant, as an actor of the state, exercised his power to
control the meeting by denying the Plaintiff an opportunity to speak.
51. The Plaintiff is a citizen who was escorted out of a meeting and not allowed to speak.
52. Plaintiff was otherwise prevented from making comments through the actions of the
Defendant.
53. The depravation of a speaker’s First and Fourteenth Amendment right is not generally
worth the lost three minutes that the council might grant him/her.
54. However, the Plaintiff is keenly aware that such actions, when exercised improperly, are
not just a depravation of the Plaintiff’s rights but to all future citizens who wish to speak
as well.
55. When a prospective speaker such as the Plaintiff is threatened with “shut up or you’re
going to jail” is unacceptable and has a chilling effect on citizen comment.
56. The abuse of power directed at the Plaintiff by the Defendant is not tolerable in a free
society.
57. Likewise, and in general, the way the Plaintiff was spoken to by the Defendant, is
unacceptable.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED the Plaintiff demands judgment against the
Defendant for such compensatory and punitive damages as may be assessed, along with pre and

Page 7 of 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 8 of 11

post judgment interest, costs and attorney fees as applicable. Further, the Plaintiff demands a
permanent injunction against the Defendant and any and all further or different relief that this
court sees fit.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

58. Plaintiff adopts, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-57 above as if fully
set forth herein.
59. The Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of his federal and state rights of free speech.
60. The Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s right to speak during the public participation
portion of the meeting of August 28, 2017.
61. The Plaintiff avers that Exhibit 1 will show the Defendant acted under the color of law
and the Plaintiff was denied an opportunity to speak.
62. The Plaintiff was injured and humiliated by the comments of the Defendant, whether
acting in his official capacity or individually.
63. The Plaintiff’s rights were violated when he was not allowed to speak to the city council.
64. The misuse of power, is clear. No one person is state law. Rather it is vested in the City
Council as a whole. However, one member may improperly use his power as City
Council President to the detriment of the body. In this matter, it is an unacceptable
overreach.
65. The egregious actions against the Plaintiff raise a question of fact whether the Defendant
at that moment in time was speaking within his official capacity or not.

Page 8 of 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 9 of 11

66. Further, the other members of the City Council knew or should have known that the
Defendant’s words trashed the concept of free speech. Yet, no one questioned the
Defendant.
67. Plaintiff does not know if conversations were held by the city council and the Defendant
prior to the city council meeting of August 28, 2017.
68. Plaintiff believes this issue is better left to the trier of fact.
69. Plaintiff does not know if the Defendant was acting in his official or individual capacity.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED the Plaintiff demands judgment against the
Defendant for such compensatory and punitive damages as may be assessed, along with pre and
post judgment interest, costs and attorney fees as applicable. Further, the Plaintiff demands a
permanent injunction against the Defendant and any and all further or different relief that this
court sees fit.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
TORT OF OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT

70. Plaintiff adopts, realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-69 above as fully as
if set forth set forth herein.
71. There can be little dispute that the conduct of the Defendant at the meeting of August 28,
2017, was outrageously directed at the Plaintiff.
72. The Defendant, through his words and threats, inflicted the Plaintiff with great emotional
pain.

Page 9 of 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 10 of 11

73. The Plaintiff was humiliated in front of those present at the meeting, but also to all those
who viewed the video of the meeting. All the public meeting videos are archived on the
City’s website.
74. Plaintiff had no other choice but to believe the words of the Defendant were intentional
and menacing.
75. No elected official should be allowed tell a citizen “say another word and you’re going to
jail”.
76. Whether the Defendant was acting officially or individually matters not. Either way the
actions of the Defendant were a violation of Ordinance No. 1587, the First and
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and U.S.C. 42 § 1983.
77. The actions set forth in detail clearly show that the actions taken were both arbitrary and
capricious, unreasonable, unconstitutional, and void in that it prohibits free speech.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED the Plaintiff demands judgment against the
Defendant for such compensatory and punitive damages as may be assessed, along with pre and
post judgment interest, costs and attorney fees as applicable. Further, the Plaintiff demands a
permanent injunction against the Defendant and any and all further or different relief that this
court sees fit.

Page 10 of 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00568-WS-B Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 11 of 11

A JURY TRIAL BY A STRUCK JURY IS DEMANDED
FOR ALL ISSUES THAT CAN BE DECIDED BY A JURY

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gregory L. Morris
Attorney for Plaintiff
Gregory L. Morris (ASB-0592-R73G)
867 Honeysuckle Dr.
Fultondale, AL 35068

Defendant’s Address:
22624 Alice Lane
Fairhope, AL 36532

Page 11 of 11