USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 1 of 14
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10865
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE,
JONATHAN O'BOYLE,
WILLIAM RING,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
COMMERCE GROUP, INC., et al. ,
Defendants,
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Defendant-Appellee.
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 2 of 14
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10865
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:19-cv-80196-AMC
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We deny the appellants’ petition for rehearing but withdraw
our previous opinion dated Feb. 8, 2023, O’Boyle v. Com. Grp.,
No. 22-10865,
2023 WL 1816381 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2023), and sub-
stitute the following opinion in its place:
* * *
Martin O’Boyle, his son Jonathan O’Boyle, and their lawyer
William Ring sued the Town of Gulf Stream for violating the First
Amendment by allegedly retaliating against their extensive public
records litigation. The district court granted summary judgment
in Gulf Stream’s favor because the town had probable cause to take
the allegedly retaliatory conduct. On appeal, Ring and the
O’Boyles argue that they did not need to show a lack of probable
cause to show retaliation. But, under our precedent, they did. So
we affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This opinion is the third in a saga that chronicles Martin
O’Boyle’s feud with Gulf Stream and its leadership. See Town of
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 3 of 14
22-10865 Opinion of the Court 3
Gulf Stream v. O’Boyle (O’Boyle I),
654 F. App’x 439 (11th Cir.
2016); DeMartini v. Town of Gulf Stream,
942 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.
2019). Most of the relevant facts are set out at greater length in
O’Boyle I and DeMartini, so we tell here an abbreviated version of
the story.
A.
Martin O’Boyle is a Gulf Stream resident who has long dis-
liked town leadership. After the town denied him a building per-
mit, he painted cartoons on his house ridiculing the town’s mayor
and hung signs criticizing town leadership from a truck that he
parked at the town hall. He also began filing public records re-
quests with the town, often in the name of various companies he
owned. In January 2014, O’Boyle started the Citizen’s Awareness
Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit ostensibly dedicated to government
transparency, and staffed it with his longtime employees and busi-
ness associates. The Foundation also lodged public records re-
quests against the town, overwhelming the small handful of mu-
nicipal staff who had to respond to them. See DeMartini, 942 F.3d
at 1281–82. Between 2013 and late 2014, O’Boyle and his associates
filed nearly 2,000 public records requests—many for vague and
hard-to-identify topics like “[a]ll email addresses created or re-
ceived by the Town of Gulf Stream” or “[A]ll phone numbers in
the town’s records.” Id. at 1282 (citing O’Boyle I, 654 F. App’x at
441–42).
When the town failed to respond timely to a public records
request, Martin O’Boyle or the Foundation would sue the town
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 4 of 14
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10865
under Florida’s sunshine law. Id. at 1283. Jonathan O’Boyle and
Ring—both attorneys—represented the entities related to Martin
O’Boyle in these lawsuits. Id. Usually acting through The O’Boyle
Law Firm, Jonathan O’Boyle and Ring would sue or threaten to
sue the town, then demand settlements far in excess of costs and
fees actually incurred. Id.
In April 2014, Gulf Stream’s town commission elected a new
mayor, Scott Morgan. Frustrated by the lawsuits and records re-
quests that Martin O’Boyle and his team were filing, Mayor Mor-
gan announced in a letter to Gulf Stream residents that the town
would be “stepping up its defense” of the litigation and taking a
“firm stance . . . to limit the detrimental effects” of the lawsuits on
the town’s morale and budget. The letter stated that by June 2014,
the town had spent more than $160,000 in legal fees—against a le-
gal budget of $15,000 for the whole year—defending the lawsuits
and receiving advice on how to combat the O’Boyles’ activities.
Gulf Stream and its outside counsel took a three-pronged le-
gal approach to fighting the public records litigation, all starting in
early 2015. First, the town filed several counterclaims in one of the
state-court public records lawsuits and moved for sanctions against
Jonathan O’Boyle and Ring, based partly on their flying banners
and signs that the town felt demeaned its outside counsel. Second,
Mayor Morgan filed bar complaints against Jonathan O’Boyle and
Ring that alleged the two had violated various legal ethics rules.
Third, the town sued the O’Boyles, Ring, The O’Boyle Law Firm,
and several others in federal district court under the Racketeer
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 5 of 14
22-10865 Opinion of the Court 5
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
18 U.S.C.
§§ 1962(c), 1964(c).
At a town meeting in September 2015, Mayor Morgan ex-
pressed hope that the town’s legal strategy was working. He stated
that “[t]hings have returned, at least in physical and visual nature,
to the way [the] town used to be,” because the O’Boyles were no
longer flying banners critical of the town. Mayor Morgan said that
if the banners started flying again, “that would be deemed abusive
and malicious, with legal connotation.” He also told the town that
the number of public records requests had decreased substantially
and that the public records lawsuits were “winnowing down” in
response to the motions for sanctions they had filed.
Meanwhile, in the courtroom, the town mostly saw defeat.
The Florida Bar declined to discipline Ring or Jonathan O’Boyle,
and the state court declined to sanction them. The state court also
dismissed the town’s counterclaims. The federal district court dis-
missed the RICO suit, and we affirmed the dismissal because the
town had not alleged facts showing that Martin O’Boyle and his
associates had conspired to do anything illegal. Boyle I, 654 F.
App’x at 445.
After the town meeting in September 2015, Gulf Stream Po-
lice Sergeant John Passeggiata saw Martin O’Boyle attempting to
write on a bulletin board in the lobby of the town hall. Sergeant
Passeggiata and his boss, Police Chief Garrett Ward, confronted
O’Boyle to get him to stop. O’Boyle and Chief Ward began argu-
ing, and eventually the officers escorted a noncompliant O’Boyle
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 6 of 14
6 Opinion of the Court 22-10865
out of the building. While O’Boyle was being driven away by am-
bulance—he had suffered minor injuries in the scuffle—Chief
Ward told Sergeant Passeggiata that he would charge O’Boyle for
the incident. The State Attorney filed an information against
O’Boyle for trespass, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. In
August 2021, a state judge dismissed the trespassing and resisting
arrest charges, and a jury found O’Boyle not guilty of disorderly
conduct.
B.
The O’Boyles and Ring sued Gulf Stream under section 1983
for allegedly retaliating against their First-Amendment-protected
activity. The complaint identified three forms of alleged retalia-
tion: (1) the town’s RICO lawsuit, (2) the bar complaints filed
against Ring and Jonathan O’Boyle, and (3) Martin O’Boyle’s pros-
ecution. After discovery closed, the parties filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. The town argued that it had civil probable
cause to file the RICO suit and bar complaints—and that the State
Attorney had criminal probable cause to prosecute Martin
O’Boyle—so the plaintiffs could not establish a First Amendment
retaliation claim. The O’Boyles and Ring argued in response that
they did not need to show a lack of probable cause because their
case paralleled Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, where the Su-
preme Court allowed a false arrest claim to proceed even though
probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff.
138 S. Ct. 1945, 1955
(2018). They also argued that, even if Lozman did not apply, there
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 7 of 14
22-10865 Opinion of the Court 7
was still a genuine dispute of material fact whether the town had
probable cause to take legal action against them.
The district court initially denied summary judgment. It
agreed with the town that Lozman did not apply, so the O’Boyles
and Ring had to show the town lacked probable cause to take legal
action against them. The district court relied heavily on our deci-
sion in DeMartini. There, we held that Martin O’Boyle’s employee
Denise DeMartini—not a party here—hadn’t provided evidence
that would bring her within Lozman’s exception to the principle
that probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliation claim
based on an allegedly retaliatory legal process. See DeMartini, 942
F.3d at 1306. Based on DeMartini, the district court concluded
there was no dispute the town had probable cause to file the RICO
lawsuit—and the state-court counterclaims—notwithstanding ad-
ditional evidence that Ring and the O’Boyles had submitted.
The district court also concluded that the town’s bar com-
plaints against Ring and Jonathan O’Boyle were “sufficiently anal-
ogous to civil litigation” that, unless Lozman applied, the town
would prevail if it had probable cause to file them. And the town
did have probable cause, the district court explained, to send the
initial bar complaints. But there was a genuine dispute about
whether the town had probable cause to file additional complaints
after receiving notice that the initial complaints had been resolved.
Finally, as to the criminal charges, the district court found
no genuine dispute that the state attorney had probable cause to
prosecute Martin O’Boyle for trespass. But, the district court
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 8 of 14
8 Opinion of the Court 22-10865
concluded, there were genuine disputes as to whether there was
probable cause to charge O’Boyle with disorderly conduct and re-
sisting arrest.
After the district court denied summary judgment, the par-
ties filed a joint stipulation that (1) the town hadn’t filed additional
bar complaints against Ring or Jonathan O’Boyle after receiving
notice that the initial complaints had been resolved and (2) there
was probable cause to charge Martin O’Boyle with disorderly con-
duct and resisting arrest. The district court then entered a revised
order granting summary judgment for Gulf Stream. Ring and the
O’Boyles timely appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo an order granting summary judgment.
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Evie’s Tavern Ellenton, Inc.,
772 F.3d 1254,
1257 (11th Cir. 2014). “Summary judgment is appropriate when
‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”
Id. (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a)).
DISCUSSION
The First Amendment’s free speech clause, see U.S. Const.
amend. I, “protects ‘not only the affirmative right to speak, but also
the right to be free from retaliation by a public official for the exer-
cise of that right.’” DeMartini, 942 F.3d at 1288 (quoting Suarez
Corp. Indus. v. McGraw,
202 F.3d 676, 685 (4th Cir. 2000)). A per-
son who suffers retaliation for activity the First Amendment
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 9 of 14
22-10865 Opinion of the Court 9
protects can seek relief under
42 U.S.C. section 1983. See Bennett
v. Hendrix,
423 F.3d 1247, 1249–50 (11th Cir. 2005). To do so, he
must show that “(1) his speech was constitutionally protected; (2)
[he] suffered adverse action such that the [government actor’s] al-
legedly retaliatory conduct would likely deter a person of ordinary
firmness from engaging in such speech; and (3) there is a causal re-
lationship between the retaliatory action and the protected
speech.” Smith v. Mosley,
532 F.3d 1270, 1276 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here, Gulf Stream concedes that the appellants engaged in
constitutionally protected speech when they made public records
requests, sued to enforce Florida public records laws, and offered
to settle those lawsuits. See DeMartini, 942 F.3d at 1288. And the
town doesn’t dispute that its activities could deter a reasonable per-
son from engaging in protected speech. Cf. id. at 1298–99 (analyz-
ing First Amendment retaliation cases from other circuits that in-
volved allegedly retaliatory lawsuits). The issue we must decide is
whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Gulf Stream’s
lawsuit and bar complaints—or O’Boyle’s criminal charges—were
causally connected to the O’Boyles’ and Ring’s protected activity.
See Smith,
532 F.3d at 1276.
To meet the causation element of a First Amendment retal-
iation claim, “a plaintiff must establish a causal connection between
the government defendant’s retaliatory animus and the plaintiff’s
subsequent injury.” Nieves v. Bartlett,
139 S. Ct. 1715, 1722 (2019)
(marks and citation omitted). But where the government actor can
show it had probable cause to take legal action against the plaintiff’s
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 10 of 14
10 Opinion of the Court 22-10865
protected activity, a retaliation claim will usually “fail[] as a matter
of law.”
Id. at 1728.
We have recognized only two exceptions to this rule. The
first is where the government has selectively punished the plaintiff
but not others engaged in similar conduct.
Id. at 1727. The second
is in the “unique” circumstances presented in Lozman. See DeMar-
tini, 942 F.3d at 1293.
Under the Lozman exception, the existence of probable
cause does not defeat a First Amendment retaliation claim where
several conditions are satisfied. A plaintiff must show, for example,
that he suffered retaliation as the result of an “‘official municipal
policy’ of intimidation.” Id. (quoting Lozman,
138 S. Ct. at 1954).
And he must also show that there was “little relation between the
‘protected speech that prompted the retaliatory policy’” and the ac-
tions that triggered an allegedly retaliatory response. Id. at 1294
(applying Lozman,
138 S. Ct. at 1954–55)). In Lozman, the plaintiff
was arrested for disorderly conduct at a town hall meeting for ob-
jecting to the arrest of a former town official, but he alleged that
the arrest was actually part of a municipal policy to intimidate him
for criticizing the city’s eminent domain activities.
138 S. Ct. at
1949–50. His “prior, protected speech” about eminent domain,
Lozman explained, bore “little relation to the criminal offense for
which the arrest [was] made,” so his lawsuit could proceed regard-
less whether there was probable cause for his disorderly conduct
arrest.
Id. at 1954.
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 11 of 14
22-10865 Opinion of the Court 11
Ring and the O’Boyles argue that we should reject Lozman’s
“little relation” requirement: they claim this element will insulate
government actors from liability whenever they directly target
protected speech. But this argument misunderstands how the Loz-
man exception functions. True, direct retaliation against protected
speech will always bear more than a “little relation” to the speech
itself. But there is no question that a state official who directly vi-
olates a clearly established First Amendment right can be held lia-
ble under section 1983. See, e.g., Bennett,
423 F.3d at 1255 (deny-
ing qualified immunity for officials who allegedly suppressed pro-
tected political expression).
Lozman concerned when probable cause for an allegedly re-
taliatory arrest will defeat a First Amendment retaliation claim.
Where there is little relation between the protected expression and
the allegedly retaliatory action—and where the other Lozman ele-
ments are met—the plaintiff must show only that the official act
would not have occurred but-for the protected expression. See De-
Martini, 942 F.3d at 1294. But, where the official or municipality
acts in direct response to protected expression, it can be held liable
only if there was no probable cause to believe the expression was
illegal. Id. That is what the Supreme Court held in Lozman and
what we reaffirmed in DeMartini.
On appeal, Ring and the O’Boyles do not dispute the district
court’s conclusion that the town had probable cause to file its RICO
suit and state-court counterclaims, the initial bar complaints, or the
trespassing charge against Martin O’Boyle. Ring and the O’Boyles
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 12 of 14
12 Opinion of the Court 22-10865
don’t argue that they were selectively prosecuted. Cf. Nieves,
139
S. Ct. at 1727. And the parties also jointly stipulated before the dis-
trict court there was probable cause to charge Martin O’Boyle with
disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The sole legal issue on ap-
peal is thus whether the Lozman exception applies to the town’s
alleged retaliatory actions: the RICO lawsuit and state-court coun-
terclaims, the initial bar complaints, and Martin O’Boyle’s criminal
charges. We address each in turn.
A.
The district court correctly found that Gulf Stream’s civil lit-
igation fell outside the Lozman exception. The town filed the
RICO suit and state-court counterclaims as a direct response to the
hundreds of public records requests, and multiple lawsuits, that
were draining municipal resources and manpower. See O’Boyle I,
654 F. App’x at 442. Even though the litigation was ultimately un-
successful, the town was attempting to pursue legitimate goals:
preventing harassment and minimizing public expenditures on le-
gal fees.
The appellants argue that Mayor Morgan’s “firm stance” let-
ter and the speech he gave at the September 2015 town hall show
evidence of the town’s retaliatory intent. But the letter actually
highlights the connection between the town’s legal actions, the
public records requests, and the public records litigation. Mayor
Morgan specifically noted the financial burden of the records re-
quests as a reason for the town to adopt a more aggressive re-
sponse. The letter thus shows that the town’s litigation strategy
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 13 of 14
22-10865 Opinion of the Court 13
bore more than “little relation” to the public records requests. Cf.
Lozman,
138 S. Ct. at 1954.
B.
The district court also correctly concluded that the bar com-
plaints the town filed against Ring and Jonathan O’Boyle were
closely related to their public records litigation activity. The bar
complaints included as potential ethics violations: (1) Jonathan
O’Boyle’s appearance in the public records litigation cases without
a license from The Florida Bar; (2) The O’Boyle Law Firm’s “feeder
relationship” with Martin O’Boyle and the businesses he created to
carry out his public records litigation; and (3) the firm’s “windfall
fee scheme” of threatening Gulf Stream with litigation unless it
agreed to settlements in excess of The O’Boyle Law Firm’s actual
fees and costs. All of these bases for the bar complaints were inti-
mately linked to Ring and the O’Boyles’ protected activity—asking
for public records and filing lawsuits about the requests.
C.
Martin O’Boyle’s criminal charges also fell outside the Loz-
man exception. As the district court explained, false prosecution
claims are governed not by Lozman but by Hartman v. Moore,
547
U.S. 250 (2006). Because the State Attorney’s decision to charge
O’Boyle added a layer of independent judgment between a govern-
ment official’s alleged retaliatory motive and the criminal charges
filed, Hartman made “showing an absence of probable cause” a
USCA11 Case: 22-10865 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 14 of 14
14 Opinion of the Court 22-10865
necessary “element[] of the tort” of retaliatory prosecution.
Id. at
263.
On appeal, Martin O’Boyle argues that because the Gulf
Stream police chief pressed charges against him, we should apply
Lozman rather than Hartman. But it was the State Attorney who
filed the information against Martin O’Boyle to trigger the prose-
cution, and not anyone who worked for the town. See Doe v.
State,
634 So. 2d 613, 615 (Fla. 1994) (“Florida’s state attorney acts
in noncapital investigations as a one-person grand jury . . . .”).
Even if Chief Ward wanted to retaliate against O’Boyle, “[e]vi-
dence of [a police officer’s] animus does not necessarily show that
the [officer] induced the action of a prosecutor.” Hartman,
547 U.S.
at 263. Showing the absence of probable cause is thus necessary to
“bridge the gap between the nonprosecuting government agent’s
motive and the prosecutor’s action.”
Id. In light of Hartman, the
parties’ stipulation that there was probable cause to charge Martin
O’Boyle with trespass and disorderly conduct was fatal to his retal-
iatory prosecution claim. The district court did not err.
CONCLUSION
Because Ring and the O’Boyles either stipulated, or did not
contest on appeal, that probable cause existed for the actions the
complaint identified as retaliatory, and because Lozman doesn’t ap-
ply to any of those acts, the district court did not err in granting
Gulf Stream’s motion for summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
