Andrew Policastro v. Tenafly Board of Ed , 438 F. App'x 153 ( 2011 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 10-2479
_____________
ANDREW POLICASTRO,
Appellant
v.
TENAFLY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Individually and in their official capacity as the Tenafly Board of Education;
EUGENE WESTLAKE, INTERIM SUPERINTENDENT,
individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools,
Tenafly Public Schools; THEODORA P. KONTOGIANNIS, Principal,
individually and in her official capacity as Tenafly High School Principal
_____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 2-09-cv-01794)
District Judge: Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 11, 2011
Before: RENDELL, SMITH and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 20, 2011 )
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Andrew Policastro appeals from the District Court’s grant of a motion for
summary judgment in favor of the Tenafly Board of Education (“Board”), Dr. Eugene
Westlake, and Dr. Theodora Kontogiannis on the claim that his First Amendment rights
were violated by the Board’s policy governing the use of teacher’s mailboxes. We
review a grant of summary judgment de novo and apply the same standard as the District
Court. Stratechuk v. Bd. of Educ., South Orange-Maplewood Sch. Dist., 587 F.3d 597,
603 (3d Cir. 2009)(citations omitted). We will affirm the District Court’s summary
judgment order.
Policastro challenged the Board’s mailbox policy as unconstitutional in a previous
case, and the District Court concluded that the policy was not unconstitutionally
overbroad and that his “as applied” challenge was moot. In an attempt to revisit the
District Court’s conclusion that his “as applied” challenge was moot – a conclusion
which was affirmed by this Court – Policastro deliberately violated the mailbox policy
for a second time. Following an official letter of reprimand from the Board, Policastro
commenced the underlying suit. After discovery, both parties filed motions for summary
judgment and the District Court ruled in favor of the Appellees, reasoning that the
mailbox policy is a content-neutral limitation which is “valid provided that [it is] justified
without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that [it is] narrowly tailored to
serve a significant governmental interest, and that [it] leave[s] open ample alternative
channels for communication of the information.” Policastro v. Tenafly Bd. of Educ., 710
F.Supp.2d 495, 509 (D.N.J. 2010)(quoting Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468
2
U.S. 288, 293 (1984)). In a clear and carefully reasoned opinion, the District Court
correctly applied this standard in concluding that the policy did not violate Policastro’s
rights. We can add nothing to the District Court’s analysis.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of the Appellees’ motion for
summary judgment.
3