UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Jacksonville Division
THOMAS JAMES COVENANT, an
individual, and JEFFREY MARCUS
GRAY, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:15-cv-_____________
v.
MARK HARRISON MAHON, in his
official capacity as Chief Judge of the
Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and
MIKE WILLIAMS, in his official
capacity as the Sheriff of Jacksonville,
Duval County, Florida,

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, THOMAS JAMES COVENANT (“Mr.
Covenant”) and JEFFREY MARCUS GRAY (“Mr. Gray”) (collectively, the
“Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned Counsel, and sue MARK
HARRISON MAHON (“Chief Judge Mahon”), in his official capacity as the Chief
Judge1 of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and MIKE WILLIAMS (“Sheriff
Williams”), in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Jacksonville, Duval County,
Florida, and in support thereof, Plaintiffs allege the following:
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
1 
  See 
  FLA. 
  STAT. 
  § 
  43.26. 
  
 
  

1 
  

 INTRODUCTION, JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND PARTIES
1.

This is an action for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief,

arising from the issuance and enforcement of Administrative Order No. 2015-3
(“AO 2015-3”), a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and 42 U.S.C. §§
1983, 1988.
3.

Venue in this judicial district and division is proper, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b) and M.D. Fla. Loc. R. 1.02. Plaintiffs are residents of this
judicial district and division. Furthermore, all events giving rise to Plaintiffs’
claims occurred in the City of Jacksonville, Florida, in this judicial district and
division.
4.

Mr. Covenant is a resident and citizen of Jacksonville, Duval County,

Florida.
5.

Mr. Gray is a resident and citizen of St. Augustine, St. Johns County,

Florida.
6.

Chief Judge Mahon is the Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit,

and has “administrative supervision over all the trial courts within the judicial
circuit and over the judges and other officers of such courts”.

FLA. STAT.

§43.26(1). Furthermore, Chief Judge Mahon is vested with the authority “[t]o do

 
  

2 
  

 everything necessary to promote the prompt and efficient administration of justice
in the courts over which he or she is chief judge.” FLA. STAT. §(2)(e). At all times
material hereto, Chief Judge Mahon acted under color of state law. Plaintiffs sue
Chief Judge Mahon in his official capacity for prospective declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
7.

Sheriff Williams is the Sheriff of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida.

He assumed office on July 1, 2015. As Sheriff, he exercises overall responsibility
for the policies, training, and practices of all law enforcement officers employed by
the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (the “JSO”). At all times material hereto, Sheriff
Williams acted under color of state law, in his official capacity as the Sheriff.
Plaintiffs sue Sheriff Williams in his official capacity for prospective declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.

AO 2015-3
8.

On July 1, 2015, Chief Judge Mahon issued AO 2015-3.

9.

In relevant part, AO 2015-3 criminalizes “[d]emonstrations or

dissemination of materials that degrade or call into question the integrity of the
Court or any of its judges (e.g., claiming the Courts, Court personnel or judges are
‘corrupt’, biased, dishonest, partial, or prejudiced) . . . on the Duval County
Courthouse grounds.” AO 2015-3, at p. 6.

 
  

3 
  

 10.

In relevant part, AO 2015-3 criminalizes “[d]emonstrations that

unreasonably disrupt, disturb, interrupt, or interfere with the impartial and orderly
conduct of the judiciary, or that of JSO or other security officers . . . on the Duval
County Courthouse grounds.” Id.
11.

In relevant part, AO 2015-3 criminalizes “[t]he videotaping of secure

locations on the Duval County Courthouse grounds, such as the judges’ secure
parking garages . . . the State Attorney’s Office garage . . . and the Sally Port, and
all security features of the Duval County Courthouse . . .” Id.
12.

AO 2015-3 specifically provides that “[a]ny person engaging in the

type of expressive conduct as indicated in this Order may be found in criminal
contempt of Court.” Id. at 7.
13.

AO 2015-3 states that it “shall not, in any way, be construed as

superseding or contradicting any of the provisions of the Second Amended
Administrative Order No. 2013-17, establishing the policies and location of
peaceful demonstrators, which has been previously entered on November 20,
2014.”

A copy of the Second Amended Administrative Order No. 2013-17

(“SAAO 2013-17”) is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
14.

SAAO 2013-17 and AO 2015-3 are irreconcilable, insofar as SAAO

2013-17 is a content-neutral regulation of the time, place, and manner of speech on
the grounds of the Duval County Courthouse, whereas AO 2015-3 is a content-

 
  

4 
  

 based, viewpoint-based prohibition of speech and other admittedly “expressive
conduct”.
B.

JSO ENFORCEMENT OF AO 2015-3
15.

AO 2015-3 directs the JSO to provide a copy of AO 2015-3 to any

individual who violates AO 2015-3. AO 2015-3, at p. 7.
16.

AO 2015-3 further provides that “[i]f an individual is observed to

engage in conduct that is in violation of this Order after having been provided
notice as set forth herein, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office is hereby DIRECTED to
arrest and charge the offending individual with indirect criminal contempt of Court
(and any other charges deemed appropriate) and transport such person to the Duval
County Jail for identification and processing.” Id. (emphasis in original).
C.

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT AND JOURNALISM
17.

Plaintiffs are journalists who are affiliated with Photography Is Not A

Crime (“PINAC”), a media organization that focuses its newsgathering and
reporting on police-citizen interactions.
18.

In recent months, Plaintiffs and other PINAC-affiliated journalists

have been protesting, demonstrating, and otherwise engaging in core political
speech and other expressive conduct on and in the vicinity of the Duval County
Courthouse grounds. This expressive conduct has, at times, consisted of criticisms
of judges, police officers, and other public officials.

 
  

5 
  

 19.

Plaintiffs and other PINAC-affiliated journalists have also been

engaging in their usual video-journalism on and in the vicinity of the Duval County
Courthouse grounds.
20.

On July 2, 2015, Plaintiffs were standing on the sidewalk on the west

side of Broad Street, across the street from the Duval County Courthouse, and were
engaging in video-journalism. Thereupon, a JSO officer approached Plaintiffs,
provided them with a copy of AO 2015-3, and ordered them to cease and desist,
and to “leave the area”. The JSO officer explained that if Plaintiffs did not cease
and desist, consistent with AO 2015-3, Plaintiffs would be arrested for contempt of
court. Plaintiffs’ interaction with this JSO officer was captured on video and can
be

viewed

at

the

following

internet

link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEvMUsWmHdw&feature=youtu.be
21.

Plaintiffs have a genuine and immediate desire and intent to resume

their video-journalism and political speech – including speech that is explicitly
prohibited by AO 2015-3 – on and in the vicinity of the Duval County Courthouse
grounds. However, they fear that if they do so, they will be arrested for contempt
of court, pursuant to AO 2015-3.
22.

Plaintiffs have engaged the undersigned Counsel and agreed to pay

reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

 
  

6 
  

 COUNT I – FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION
23.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations in

paragraphs 1 through 22 as though fully set forth herein.
24.

This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and the

First and Fourteenth Amendments for declaratory and injunctive relief.
25.

AO 2015-3 is unconstitutional on its face, because it impermissibly

infringes on Plaintiffs’ right to free speech, protected by the First Amendment,
which is incorporated against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.
26.

AO 2015-3 orders Sheriff Williams to arrest those who are lawfully

exercising their First Amendment rights, and criminalizes otherwise legallyprotected, First Amendment, expressive conduct.
27.

AO 2015-3 is fatally overbroad, and there is no compelling

governmental interest that is served by it.
28.

Alternatively, AO 2015-3 is fatally overbroad, because it is not

narrowly tailored to serve any governmental interest that it may serve.
29.

AO 2015-3 is also an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech and

other expressive conduct.
30.

AO 2015-3 censors core political speech.

31.

AO 2015-3 abrogates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to photograph

and video police officers and other public officials and public buildings.

 
  

7 
  

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
(a)

a declaration that AO 2015-3 is facially unconstitutional.

(b)

a temporary restraining order, prohibiting any enforcement of AO 20153.

(c)

preliminary and permanent injunctions, prohibiting any enforcement of
AO 2015-3.

(d)

an award of reasonable costs and attorneys fees in favor of Plaintiffs,
payable jointly and severally by the Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988, and

(e)

such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and
appropriate.
COUNT II – FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION
32.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations in

paragraphs 1 through 22 as though fully set forth herein.
33.

This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and the

Fourteenth Amendment for declaratory and injunctive relief.
34.

AO 2015-3 is unconstitutionally vague on its face, because it is not

phrased in terms sufficiently definite so that men of common intelligence will not
have to guess at its meaning and application.

 
  

8 
  

 35.

AO 2015-3 is void for vagueness, because it is ambiguous, fails to

give adequate notice of what is criminalized, and encourages arbitrary and
discriminatory law enforcement practices.
36.

For example, AO 2015-3 fails to define the following material terms:
a. “degrade”
b. “call into question”
c. “disrupt”
d. “disturb”
e. “interrupt”
f. “interfere”
g. “impartial and orderly conduct of the judiciary”
h. “secure locations”
i. “credentialed media representatives”

See AO 2015-3, at p. 6.
37.

Therefore, AO 2015-3 violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
(a)

a declaration that AO 2015-3 is facially unconstitutional.

(b)

a temporary restraining order, prohibiting any enforcement of AO 20153.

 
  

9 
  

 (c)

preliminary and permanent injunctions, prohibiting any enforcement of
AO 2015-3.

(d)

an award of reasonable costs and attorneys fees in favor of Plaintiffs,
payable jointly and severally by the Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988, and

(e)

such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and
appropriate.
COUNT III – VIOLATION OF FLORIDA CONSTITUTION
SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE
38.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations in

paragraphs 1 through 22 as though fully set forth herein.
39.

In the State of Florida, “[o]ur theory of government is that of

separation of powers.

The Legislature and not the court is responsible for

legislating . . . Judges of Courts cannot do so because [they] were not elected to the
Florida Legislature.” State, Dept. of Juvenile Justice v. Soud, 685 So.2d 1376,
1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
40.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1367, article V, section 5, of the Florida Constitution, and FLA. STAT.
§26.012.

 
  

10 
  

 41.

By entering AO 2015-3, Chief Judge Mahon exceeded his jurisdiction

and authority, and in doing so, violated the Florida Constitution’s Separation of
Powers Doctrine.
42.

The subject matter of AO 2015-3 is beyond that which is the proper

concern of administrative orders, as contemplated by the Florida Rules of Judicial
Administration.2
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
(a)

a declaration that AO 2015-3 violates the Florida Constitution’s
Separation of Powers Doctrine.

(b)

a permanent injunction, prohibiting any enforcement of AO 2015-3.

(c)

an award of reasonable costs and attorneys fees in favor of Plaintiffs,
payable jointly and severally by the Defendants, and

(d)

such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and
appropriate.

Respectfully submitted July 7, 2015, by:

The Bonderud Law Firm, P.A.
/s/ Andrew Bonderud
Andrew M. Bonderud, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 102178
TRIAL COUNSEL
814 A1A North, Suite 202
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082
904-438-8082 (telephone)

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
2 
  See 
  FLA. 
  R. 
  JUD. 
  ADMIN. 
  2.020(c) 
  (defining 
  “administrative 
  order” 
  as 
  “a 
  directive 
  necessary 
  
to 
  administer 
  properly 
  the 
  court’s 
  affairs.” 
  
 
  

11 
  

 12

904-800-1482 (facsimile)
E-Mail: B0nderudLaw@gmail.c0m
Attorney for Plainti?fv