Cahill v. State of Texas ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40462
Summary Calendar
BRET CAHILL, Former employees, job
seekers & other citizens of the
State of Texas,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS; MIKE SHERIDAN,
Jointly & severally,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:00-CV-330
--------------------
September 20, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bret Cahill appeals from the district court's order granting
summary judgment to the defendants in his suit seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief. Cahill alleged that the Texas
Workforce Commission ("TWC") violated his First Amendment and
Equal Protection rights by refusing to permit him and other
former employees to post commentary about former employers on
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-40462
-2-
TWC's bulletin boards, job banks, computer networks, and other
resources.
Cahill argues that TWC created a public forum in its media
for purposes of communication regarding employment opportunities
and that the state may not subject him to content-based
restrictions. Alternatively, he argues that TWC created a
nonpublic forum and has unreasonably discriminated against him
based on his viewpoint. He also argues that the state possesses
unbridled discretion in choosing who may and may not have access
to TWC's media. In addition to addressing the merits of Cahill's
claims, the state argues that Cahill lacks standing to assert a
First Amendment challenge because he failed to allege an actual
or threatened injury.
We conclude that although Cahill alleged in his complaint
that he asked for and was denied personal access to TWC's media,
his mere allegations are insufficient to establish standing at
the summary judgment stage. Cahill failed to set forth specific
facts by affidavit or other evidence showing an actual injury in
response to the summary judgment motion. See Lujan v. Defenders
of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Cahill therefore lacks
standing.
Further, we conclude based on a review of the record that
the TWC media are not a public forum and that Cahill has not
shown that his speech was suppressed solely because public
officials disagreed with his point of view. See Cornelius v.
No. 02-40462
-3-
NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 800-06 (1985);
Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37,
44-46 (1983). Therefore, the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment on the merits.
AFFIRMED.