PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT C. STEINBURG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING No. 07-1181
COMMISSION; DANIEL A. GECKER, in
his official capacity; SHERMAN W.
LITTON, in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(3:06-cv-00248-REP)
Argued: January 31, 2008
Decided: May 29, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges,
and Patrick Michael DUFFY, United States District Judge for the
District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion,
in which Judge Shedd and Judge Duffy joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: James Broome Thorsen, THORSEN & SCHER, L.L.P.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Steven Latham Micas, County
2 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
Attorney, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, Chesterfield, Virginia, for Appellees. ON
BRIEF: Jeffrey L. Mincks, Stylian P. Parthemos, COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
Chesterfield, Virginia, for Appellees.
OPINION
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
Robert Steinburg, a citizen of Chesterfield County, Virginia, con-
tends that on October 18, 2005, the Chesterfield County Planning
Commission and two of its members violated his First Amendment
rights when the chairman of the Commission had him removed from
a public meeting of the Commission. Steinburg commenced this
action, contending that he was unconstitutionally silenced while
speaking because the commissioners disagreed with the viewpoint he
expressed, which criticized the way in which the Commission was
conducting its business.
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defen-
dants, finding that Steinburg was removed from the podium and the
meeting because he refused to address the only topic for which the
public hearing had been opened and because he behaved in a hostile
manner that threatened to disrupt the orderly progress of the meeting.
The court simultaneously denied Steinburg’s motion to amend his
complaint to assert additional claims and add a new defendant
because it found that such amendments were untimely and would be
futile in light of the fully developed record before it.
We agree with the district court that Steinburg was excluded from
the public meeting because of his refusal to address the topic for
which the meeting was opened and because of his disruptive manner,
and not because of any viewpoint he expressed. Inasmuch as the
Commission was authorized to set its subject matter agenda and to cut
off speech that was reasonably perceived to threaten disruption of the
orderly and fair progress of the meeting, we conclude that the Com-
mission and its members did not violate Steinburg’s First Amendment
STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM. 3
rights in excluding him. We also find that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Steinburg’s motion to amend his com-
plaint. Accordingly, we affirm.
I
The Chesterfield County Planning Commission, created under Vir-
ginia Code § 15.2-2210 "to promote the orderly development of the
locality and its environs," conducts regular public meetings, which are
generally videotaped for local television broadcast, as was the Octo-
ber 18, 2005 meeting, from which this case arose.
Some time prior to October 18, 2005, Robious Investments LLC,
a developer, had filed an application with the Commission for an
amendment to the zoning ordinance governing its development
known as the Tarrington Subdivision. The application requested that
the Commission change the zoning ordinance to permit development
of homes with front-facing, rather than side-facing, garages. The
application was scheduled to be heard at the October 18 meeting, but
at some point shortly before the meeting, Robious filed a request that
the Commission defer consideration of its application until the Com-
mission’s next meeting in November.
Acting in accordance with the Commission’s bylaws, Commission
Chairman Sherman Litton invited citizens at the October 18 meeting
to speak only on the limited issue of whether to grant Robious’
request to defer consideration of its application for a zoning change,
and as Nancy Frantel, a county citizen, approached the podium to
speak, Chairman Litton reiterated that the subject of the hearing was
"just on the deferral." Acknowledging the limited subject matter,
Frantel delivered a presentation in which she stated her support for
the deferral request and frequently mentioned the garage-door issue.
Her main point, however, was to express her concern about the pres-
ence of a network of abandoned mine shafts below the surface of the
earth where certain sections of the Tarrington Subdivision would be
built. Frantel spoke for approximately six minutes, without interrup-
tion from Commission members, speaking calmly and respectfully
throughout. After Frantel concluded her remarks, Commissioner F.
Wayne Bass asked follow-up questions because, as he later explained,
he had not been on the Commission when the Tarrington Subdivision
4 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
was originally zoned. Commissioner Bass and Frantel exchanged
comments about the mines for an additional two to three minutes.
Before the next speaker, Mike Harton, approached the podium,
Chairman Litton asked him whether he was in favor of the deferral,
indicating that "I’d rather not hear the case tonight." Harton replied,
"I will speak to the deferral, sir." Like Frantel before him, Harton
mentioned the deferral of the hearing on Robious’ application to
reorient the garage doors, but then he too turned to the potential haz-
ards of the abandoned mines. When Harton had spoken for about two
minutes about the mines, Commissioner Daniel Gecker asked Harton
whether he was in favor of or opposed to the deferral. Harton replied
that he was in favor of the deferral and then attempted to resume his
presentation on the abandoned mines. Chairman Litton interrupted
him and stated, "Sir, we get to hear this case next month. If you’re,
if you’re opposed to the deferral or for it, then let’s talk to the defer-
ral, but I don’t want to hear the case tonight. The case is going to
come back, and you’ll have a chance to present all your documenta-
tions at that time." Harton responded that he wanted to show the
Commission why he thought they should "reconsider this altogether
when the deferral comes up," asserting that the abandoned mines cre-
ated "a serious safety hazard here, regardless of how the garage doors
are oriented. It makes no difference whether they’re on the front, the
back or the side." Harton concluded his comments by encouraging the
Commission both to defer the case and to "look seriously at the dan-
gers involved of building over a cobweb of mines." Again, Harton’s
presentation was made calmly and respectfully throughout.
After Harton yielded the floor, Commissioner Gecker called on the
developer’s representative, William Shewmake, to clarify the issue of
the abandoned mines. Commissioner Gecker acknowledged that "this
doesn’t deal with the deferral, Mr. Chair, but since you have let
everybody else speak long past the deferral issue, maybe we can put
this one to bed also." In an exchange that lasted less than a minute,
Shewmake confirmed that the developer had hired a firm to survey
the property to determine the location of any abandoned mine shafts
before development was to begin.
In response to Chairman Litton’s invitation for further public com-
ment on the deferral request, Robert Steinburg came to the podium.
STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM. 5
But unlike the previous two speakers, he made no effort to relate his
comments to either the developer’s deferral request or the orientation
of the garages. Because it is the subject matter, as well as the tone,
of Steinburg’s speech that is at issue, his presentation is reproduced
in full:
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Bob
Steinburg, and I am President of the Old Gun Road Civic
Association, which represents 600 homes in the historic Old
Gun Road corridor. And uh, we have some, we had our
annual picnic here last week, and I can tell you that there is
a great deal of concern about this particular project, and uh,
these are health and safety concerns that are not only envi-
ronmental in nature, but you’ve heard a great deal tonight
from the speakers who have stepped up to the bar so far.
Now I, I understand that you’re not making a decision as
it relates to this particular issue this evening, but I think it
is very, very important to apprise you, if you are not already
aware, that uh, this is an issue that people - it’s a very vola-
tile issue. I’ve lived in this corridor for thirty years, and I
can tell you I haven’t seen people this hot about anything
like this, ever.
This is a very serious issue. One of the things that trou-
bles me when some of these things are being presented this
evening is a lot of bantying [sic] about back and forth by
some of you who don’t seem to be paying attention, or else
are talking about something that perhaps, uh, might not even
be related. And I can tell you that perception is reality in the
eyes of many. What you are talking about, I have no idea.
Mr. Gecker, you in particular, leaning over and saying this,
that, and the other thing, but I can tell you from a perception
standpoint from someone who is concerned, like myself and
the others in this room, it’s not very flattering. Believe me.
After Steinburg had spoken for less than two minutes, Commissioner
Gecker interjected, and the following exchange took place:
6 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
COMMISSIONER GECKER: Mr. Steinburg, abusing this
podium is not very flatter-
ing —
STEINBURG: That is not abusing the
podium, sir. That is not
abusing the podium. I am
telling you what I observed.
I am a citizen. I am repre-
senting 600 households
here at their bequest [sic]
tonight, and you will listen
to what I am saying. Sir.
COMMISSIONER GECKER: No, sir, you will not talk to
me that way. I am not going
to listen to what you’ve got
to say on a deferral motion
when you come up and
speak to something other
than the deferral. The Old
Gun Road Association —
STEINBURG: That is with regard to the
deferral, sir —
COMMISSIONER GECKER: — that you represent sup-
ported the Tarrington
rezoning —
STEINBURG: [shouting] Mr. Gecker,
would you please give me
the right to speak? Who do
you think you are?
CHAIRMAN LITTON: I’m going to cut you off.
I’m Chairman, I can cut —
STEINBURG: Mr. Litton, yes you can,
you can do that.
STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM. 7
CHAIRMAN LITTON: And I am. This has gone
way past. I’ve given you
the courtesy. This is noth-
ing but a deferral. This has
nothing to do with the case.
So just please sit down.
STEINBURG: I’m not sitting down. I’m
not done talking yet. Ask
Kirk Turner, he knows me.
I’m not a wild citizen.
COMMISSIONER GECKER: Is there — Mr. Turner, is
that right?
STEINBURG: Let me speak!
CHAIRMAN LITTON: I, you know, I’ve, I’ve
heard enough on this case
tonight. I’m going to cut it
off, okay.
STEINBURG: Can you tell me why you’re
cutting it off?
CHAIRMAN LITTON: Because it’s strictly a defer-
ral, and we’re not arguing
the case tonight. The case
will be discussed at some
time, at a later time. If
you’re telling me that
you’re in favor of the defer-
ral, that’s all I need to
know. If you don’t want the
deferral, then that, you can
argue —
STEINBURG: You don’t want any back-
ground information on any-
8 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
thing. I, it sounds to me like
you people have already
made up your mind as to
what you’re going to do.
CHAIRMAN LITTON: I don’t need the information
tonight because I’m going
to hear the case again next
month.
STEINBURG: I understand that, sir. All
I’m asking for is respect
from you. I’ll give you
respect, you give me
respect. That’s all I want.
CHAIRMAN LITTON: I’m asking you just to sit
down, please.
STEINBURG: I know you are. I under-
stand what you’re doing.
And when I am through
speaking I will sit down.
CHAIRMAN LITTON: No, I think you’re going to
sit down now.
STEINBURG: I’m not!
At that point, Chairman Litton directed a request to Police Officer
James Profita, who had entered the meeting room in response to an
electric alarm that had been pressed by Kirk Turner, the Chesterfield
County director of planning who, by virtue of his position, served as
secretary of the Commission.
CHAIRMAN LITTON (to Officer Profita):
Would you ask him to sit
down, sir?
STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM. 9
OFFICER PROFITA (to Steinburg):
Sir, you can sit down right
now, or you can come with
me. It’s come to that
option.
STEINBURG: And why am I sitting
down?
OFFICER PROFITA: Disorderly conduct, for one.
STEINBURG: This is disorderly conduct
in a public forum?
OFFICER PROFITA: Yes, sir, they’ve asked you
to sit down and you’re not
cooperating.
STEINBURG: Let the record show that
this gentleman has just
asked a citizens [sic] from
Chesterfield County who is
speaking to this issue to sit
down. This is what is wrong
with the County of Chester-
field. This is what you peo-
ple are doing.
[Profita approaches Stein-
burg]
I’ll go with you! Just hang
on.
OFFICER PROFITA: You’re done speaking.
You’re done speaking.
STEINBURG: Show me the way!
10 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
OFFICER PROFITA: You’re done speaking,
please. Let’s go. [Profita
places his hand on Stein-
burg’s arm. Steinburg
places his hand on Profita’s
side.] Get your hands off of
me.
STEINBURG: Get your hands off of me!
OFFICER PROFITA: You’re done. Put your
hands behind your back.
[Profita and another officer
escort Steinburg from the
podium and out of the
meeting room.]
After Steinburg was removed from the meeting, the Commission
agreed that the only issue before it was Robious’ deferral request and,
following a motion, voted to grant the request, postponing the hearing
for 30 days on its application for a zoning change.
In April 2006, Steinburg commenced this action against the Com-
mission, Chairman Litton, and Commissioner Gecker in their official
capacities, seeking an injunction prohibiting the defendants from
restraining his speech and, in particular, prohibiting enforcement of
the Commission’s policy prohibiting "personal attacks" during meet-
ings. He also requested compensatory and punitive damages.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered
judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the incontrovert-
ible evidence showed that Chairman Litton, not Commissioner
Gecker, restricted Steinburg’s speech and that "he did so after repeat-
edly informing all speakers that the topic to be addressed was the
request for deferral." The court also concluded that because there was
insufficient evidence to prove that Steinburg was silenced because of
the Commission’s policy against personal attacks, it would not reach
the question raised by Steinburg of whether that policy was unconsti-
STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM. 11
tutional. At the same time that the court decided the summary judg-
ment motions, it also issued an order denying Steinburg’s request to
amend his complaint to sue the individual defendants in their individ-
ual capacities, to challenge the Commission’s time, place, and manner
restrictions on speech, and to add Officer Profita as a defendant. The
district court denied that motion because it violated the controlling
scheduling order and because the amendments sought would be futile.
Steinburg appealed, challenging both the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to the defendants and its refusal to allow him to
amend his complaint.
II
For his principal argument, Steinburg contends that Chairman Lit-
ton and Commissioner Gecker unconstitutionally silenced his speech
(1) by enforcing the unconstitutional Commission policy against "per-
sonal attacks" and (2) by cutting off his right to speak, based on his
viewpoint. He points to Commissioner Gecker’s accusation that
Steinburg was "‘abusing the podium’ . . . as soon as Steinburg criti-
cized him by name" and to Chairman Litton’s immediate intervention
to "cut off Steinburg after he criticized Gecker and the Commission
for their handling of the deferral debate" and have him removed from
the public meeting. Steinburg argues that the defendants had "no
power to restrict [his] expression because of its message, its ideas, its
subject matter, or its content."
We address Steinburg’s double-layered argument first by address-
ing his assertion that the Commission, in cutting off his speech, was
enforcing an unconstitutional policy that prohibited speakers from
engaging in "personal attacks" and then by addressing his claim that
Chairman Litton’s cutting him off and excluding him from the meet-
ing silenced his speech based on his viewpoint. But we begin by rec-
ognizing with respect to both layers of Steinburg’s argument that the
standards for determining whether the Commission unconstitutionally
restricted Steinburg’s speech in a public forum depend on the nature
of the forum. See Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S.
98, 106-07 (2001).
In the traditional public forum, which includes the streets, side-
walks, parks, and general meeting halls, speakers’ rights are at their
12 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
apex. Speakers have a right to speak free of any government-imposed
restrictions on their speech unless the restrictions are reasonable time,
place, and manner restrictions; are content-neutral; and are "narrowly
tailored" to serve a significant governmental interest. See Clark v.
Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 295
(1984). In addition, content-based restrictions may be imposed in a
traditional public forum where there is "a clear and present danger
that [the speech] will bring about the substantive evils that [govern-
ment] has a right to prevent," Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47,
52 (1919), and where the restrictions are narrowly drawn to serve that
compelling state interest, see Child Evangelism Fellowship of Md.,
Inc. v. Montgomery County Pub. Schs., 457 F.3d 376, 381 (4th Cir.
2006) (citing Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators Ass’n, 460
U.S. 37, 45 (1983)).
Distinct from the traditional public forum is the "limited public
forum," which governmental entities may create in a specified loca-
tion for a limited use, so long as they do not impose those limits in
a manner that discriminates based on the speaker’s viewpoint. Thus,
"[w]hen the State establishes a limited public forum, the State is not
required to and does not allow persons to engage in every type of
speech. The State may be justified ‘in reserving [its forum] for certain
groups or for the discussion of certain topics.’" Good News Club, 533
U.S. at 106 (quoting Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va.,
515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995) (second alteration in original)). In a limited
public forum, however, the government still "‘must not discriminate
against speech on the basis of viewpoint,’ and any restriction ‘must
be reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.’" Child
Evangelism Fellowship of S.C. v. Anderson Sch. Dist. Five, 470 F.3d
1062, 1067-68 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Good News Club, 533 U.S.
at 106-07).
In this case the parties agree that the Commission’s public meeting
was a "limited public forum," and we concur in that assessment.
Accordingly, a government entity such as the Commission is justified
in limiting its meeting to discussion of specified agenda items and in
imposing reasonable restrictions to preserve the civility and decorum
necessary to further the forum’s purpose of conducting public busi-
ness. But any restriction must not discriminate on the basis of a
speaker’s viewpoint. See Good News Club, 533 U.S. at 106-07; Col-
STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM. 13
linson v. Gott, 895 F.2d 994, 1000 (4th Cir. 1990) (Phillips, J., con-
curring).
In Collinson, through three separate opinions of the three panel
members, we held that the chairman of a board of county commis-
sioners was entitled to immunity against a claim that he had violated
the free speech rights of a man by ruling him out of order while
speaking at a board meeting and having him removed from the meet-
ing by the police. While we do not rely on Collinson’s immunity
holding, we do accept the uncontroversial contours of the govern-
ment’s ability to restrict speech in a limited public forum, as summa-
rized by Judge Phillips in his concurring opinion:
1. Speech at public meetings called by government offi-
cials for discussion of matters of public concern is enti-
tled to normal first amendment protections against
general restrictions or ad hoc parliamentary rulings by
presiding officials. City of Madison[, Joint Sch. Dist.
No. 8 v. Wisc. Employment Relations Comm’n], 429
U.S. [167,] 175-76 [(1976)], 97 S. Ct. at 426-27.
2. Because of government’s substantial interest in having
such meetings conducted with relative orderliness and
fairness to all, officials presiding over such meetings
must have discretion, under the "reasonable time, place
and manner" constitutional principle, to set subject mat-
ter agendas, and to cut off speech which they reason-
ably perceive to be, or imminently to threaten, a
disruption of the orderly and fair progress of the discus-
sion, whether by virtue of its irrelevance, its duration,
or its very tone and manner.FN3 This obviously con-
templates that in this setting the content of speech may
properly be the conscious target of state action (where
it is cut off for irrelevance or manner of delivery), or its
collateral victim (when it is cut off for excessive dura-
tion). But this consequence assuredly lies within well-
established constitutional principles, once it is accepted,
as I think we must, that disruption of the orderly con-
duct of public meetings is indeed one of the "substan-
14 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
tive evils that [government] has a right to prevent."
Schenck, 249 U.S. at 52, 39 S. Ct. at 249.
FN3. The "disruption" to which this interest
extends — as an "evil" to be avoided — is of
course not confined to raw, physical violence,
but includes any conduct that significantly vio-
lates generally or specially established rules of
parliamentary order, and "disrupts" by that
means the orderly conduct of a meeting.
3. As indicated, official discretion here is not limitless.
The limits can be found in the well-established principle
that the primary concern of the no-censorship-of-
content requirement is with speaker viewpoint rather
than with subject matter per se. See generally Stone,
Restriction of Speech Because of its Content: The Pecu-
liar Case of Subject-Matter Restrictions, 46 U. Chi. L.
Rev. 81, 83, 108 (1978) (distinction noted). While the
latter will yield fairly readily to time, place and manner
restrictions, the former will but rarely, if ever, do so.
Thus, while a ruling, "We will not listen to your views
on capital punishment at this public hearing on rezon-
ing," certainly must be constitutionally permissible, a
ruling, "We will not listen to yours or any views favor-
ing rezoning at this rezoning hearing," obviously would
not be. See City of Madison, 429 U.S. at 175-76 & n.8,
97 S. Ct. at 426-27 & n.8 (contrasting impermissibility
of viewpoint restrictions with permissibility of general
subject matter restrictions in conduct of public meet-
ings).
Collinson, 895 F.2d at 1000 (Phillips, J., concurring).
With these principles applicable to limited public forums in hand,
we now address Steinburg’s arguments, beginning with his challenge
of the Commission’s policy against personal attacks.
A
On the policy against personal attacks, Steinburg claims that Com-
missioner Gecker interrupted him for "abusing the podium" and "criti-
STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM. 15
cizing" Gecker by name, and he argues that Chairman Litton merely
took up Gecker’s cause by excluding Steinburg from the meeting.
Thus, according to Steinburg, the two commissioners were in tandem
and sub silentio enforcing the Commission’s policy against personal
attacks, which he argues was an unconstitutional policy under the
holding of Bach v. School Board of Virginia Beach, 139 F. Supp. 2d
738 (E.D. Va. 2001). In Bach, the court struck down as unconstitu-
tional a school board policy prohibiting speakers from making "at-
tacks or accusations regarding the honesty, character, integrity or
other like personal attributes of any identified individual or group."
Id. at 741. The court found that
[t]he contested provision tests the boundaries of the fine dis-
tinction between content-based and content-neutral regula-
tions. First Amendment scholars, judges, and attorneys
could engage in endless debate over whether it discriminates
against speech on the basis of its content by allowing gen-
eral praise while silencing criticism. Fortunately, the Court
need not engage in such a comprehensive analysis, for a pol-
icy that deters individuals from speaking out on an issue of
public importance violates the First Amendment. The con-
tested provision has that effect and for that reason is uncon-
stitutional.
Id. at 743 (citation omitted).
The Commission’s policy against "personal attacks" focuses on
two evils that could erode the beneficence of orderly public discus-
sion. First, as an insult directed at a person and not speech directed
at substantive ideas or procedures at issue, a personal attack is surely
irrelevant — unless, of course, the topic legitimately at issue is the
person being attacked, such as his qualifications for an office or his
conduct. Second, as an insult directed at a person and not the issues
at hand, a personal attack leads almost inevitably to a responsive
defense or counter-attack and thus to argumentation that has the real
potential to disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting. As we
observed in Collinson, this disruption may take the form of speaking
on irrelevant subjects, of speaking too long, or of speaking in a tone
or manner that threatens disruption. 895 F.2d at 1000 (Phillips, J.,
concurring).
16 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
The Commission has a significant interest in maintaining civility
and decorum during the public comment sessions of its public meet-
ings, both to ensure the efficient conduct of the people’s business and
to maximize citizen participation in the discussion. See id. To further
these legitimate public interests, therefore, the Commission adopted
a policy against personal attacks.
We conclude that a content-neutral policy against personal attacks
is not facially unconstitutional insofar as it is adopted and employed
to serve the legitimate public interest in a limited forum of decorum
and order. Such a policy is deemed content-neutral when it "serves
purposes unrelated to the content of expression . . . even if it has an
incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others." Ward
v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989).
Moreover, denying a speaker at the podium in a Commission hear-
ing the right to launch personal attacks does not interfere with what
that speaker could say without employing such attacks. The same
message could be communicated, indeed probably more persuasively,
as we have witnessed in the videotape of the presentations of other
speakers at the proceedings in this case. In the language of First
Amendment jurisprudence, the Commission’s policy in this case has
left open "‘ample alternative channels for communication of the infor-
mation.’" Id. at 791 (quoting Clark, 468 U.S. at 293).
We therefore reject Steinburg’s facial challenge to the Commis-
sion’s policy prohibiting speakers from engaging in personal attacks,
and we find the opinion in Bach, on which Steinburg relies, to be
inconsistent with our jurisprudence on this issue.
Of course, this holding does not preclude a challenge premised on
misuse of the policy to chill or silence speech in a given circum-
stance. As for Steinburg’s argument that the Commission’s policy
was in fact used to silence him, it does not appear from the videotape
or the transcript of the hearing in this case that the policy against per-
sonal attacks was invoked or applied. Steinburg argues that the policy
was surely what Chairman Litton and Commissioner Gecker had in
mind as they excluded him. But based on the videotape of the meet-
ing, it appears that Chairman Litton excluded Steinburg because of
his refusal to remain on subject and because of Chairman Litton’s
STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM. 17
observation, as presiding officer of the meeting, that the discussion
was degenerating quickly into a situation which would disrupt the
parliamentary order. As Commissioner Gecker and Steinburg had
their exchange, which undoubtedly raised the temperature in the hear-
ing room, Steinburg told Commissioner Gecker, "[Y]ou will listen to
what I am saying." Gecker responded, "No, sir, you will not talk to
me that way." Steinburg then started talking over Gecker. At that
point, Chairman Litton took control, noting that the discussion had
"gone way past" the deferral issue and instructing Steinburg to "please
sit down." Steinburg refused, stating, "I’m not sitting down. I’m not
done talking yet." When Chairman Litton explained the scope of the
meeting to Steinburg and invited him to continue speaking on the
deferral issue or to speak to the merits later, at the November meeting,
Steinburg insisted on giving background information and demanded
respect. Chairman Litton then repeated his request to Steinburg, "I’m
asking you just to sit down, please." Upon Steinburg’s refusal to obey
his instruction, Chairman Litton excluded Steinburg from the meet-
ing, as described in the following portion of the meeting’s transcript:
CHAIRMAN LITTON: No, I think you’re going to
sit down now.
STEINBURG: I’m not!
CHAIRMAN LITTON (To Officer Profita):
Would you ask him to sit
down, sir?
OFFICER PROFITA (To Steinburg):
Sir, you can sit down right
now, or you can come with
me. It’s come to that
option.
STEINBURG: And why am I sitting
down?
OFFICER PROFITA: Disorderly conduct, for one.
18 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
STEINBURG: This is disorderly conduct
in a public forum?
OFFICER PROFITA: Yes, sir, they’ve asked you
to sit down and you’re not
cooperating.
Officer Profita then escorted Steinburg from the room.
It is apparent that the parliamentary order of the proceedings was
put at risk by Steinburg’s refusal to obey the chairman’s ruling that
Steinburg was out of order and the chairman’s instruction to sit down.
All of the evidence in the record is consistent with Chairman Lit-
ton’s intent to cut off the irrelevant, off-topic discussion, to restore
order, and to prevent the meeting from spiraling out of control, as was
his right and duty as chair. At no time during the meeting did Litton
cite the "personal attacks" policy, nor did he ever express a view that
he considered Steinburg’s comments during the meeting to constitute
a "personal attack." We agree with the district court’s conclusion that
the "evidence is insufficient to prove that Steinburg was silenced
because of the policy."
B
Steinburg also contends that he was improperly excluded from the
Commission meeting for expressing his viewpoint, criticizing the way
the Commission was going about its business. Again, however, we
conclude that the record does not support his claim that he was
silenced because he expressed a particular viewpoint.
Beginning with Steinburg’s discussion with Commissioner Gecker,
during which Steinburg was indeed expressing criticism, there is no
evidence to support a claim that Gecker silenced Steinburg’s speech,
nor that Gecker requested the Chairman to do so. Rather, Gecker
observed about Steinburg’s criticism that his "abusing this podium
[was] not very flattering." After Steinburg took issue with the obser-
vation that he was abusing the podium, he instructed Gecker, "[Y]ou
will listen to what I am saying." Commissioner Gecker said, "No, sir,
STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM. 19
you will not talk to me that way. I am not going to listen to what
you’ve got to say on a deferral motion when you come up and speak
to something other than the deferral. The Old Gun Road Association
—" At that point, after Steinburg interrupted Commissioner Gecker,
Chairman Litton intervened and told Steinburg that Chairman Litton,
as the presiding officer, was going to cut him off. Thus, Commis-
sioner Gecker was not instrumental in any sense in silencing Stein-
burg. Gecker simply challenged the premise underlying Steinburg’s
criticism and expressed his intent not to listen. Whether expressing
such an intent was an appropriate response for a commissioner can be
debated, but that response did not amount to a violation of Steinburg’s
First Amendment rights. See Minn. State Bd. for Community Colleges
v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 283 (1984) (noting that there is "no constitu-
tional right to force the government to listen to [one’s] views").
As for Chairman Litton, he did attempt to cut Steinburg off and
ultimately he excluded Steinburg from the meeting. But Chairman
Litton’s concern was explicitly focused on having Steinburg stay on
subject and on conforming his manner to the order that was necessary.
Chairman Litton’s first statement after announcing his intent to cut
Steinburg off made clear that his motivation was purely to keep the
meeting from degenerating into an irrelevant argument unrelated to
the item on the agenda: "This has gone way past. I’ve given you the
courtesy. This is nothing but a deferral. This has nothing to do with
the case. So just please sit down." In response to Steinburg’s question
asking why he was being cut off, Chairman Litton stated directly and
clearly, "Because it’s strictly a deferral, and we’re not arguing the
case tonight. The case will be discussed at some time, at a later time."
Litton even tried to afford Steinburg an opportunity to continue
addressing the Commission on the deferral issue: "If you’re telling me
that you’re in favor of the deferral, that’s all I need to know. If you
don’t want the deferral, then that, you can argue — ." But he could
not complete this offer to Steinburg to argue for or against the deferral
because Steinburg interrupted him, accusing the Commission of not
wanting any "background information." Chairman Litton continued to
remind Steinburg that the matter before the Commission was limited
in scope to the deferral of a request to change the orientation of
garages, and had nothing to do with abandoned mines or the overall
zoning case that had been addressed by some previous speakers.
20 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
Steinburg argues that an inference of viewpoint discrimination can
be drawn from the fact that Chairman Litton permitted Frantel and
Harton to speak off-topic about abandoned mines even though that
subject was irrelevant to the deferral request before the Commission,
whereas Chairman Litton cut off Steinburg as soon as he voiced criti-
cism of the Commission. The record, however, does not support this
argument. While Chairman Litton did permit Frantel to deliver her
presentation without interruption, even though much of it was at best
only tangentially related to the deferral, he also told her that the sub-
ject matter was the deferral and he received her position on the defer-
ral. With respect to Harton, Chairman Litton reminded Harton before
he began speaking, perhaps in response to Frantel’s speaking off-
topic, that the hearing was limited to the deferral and that he would
"rather not hear the case tonight." Harton promised that he would
"speak to the deferral," but he roamed off-topic and within two min-
utes he was interrupted twice — first by Commissioner Gecker in an
attempt to determine his position on the deferral since he had not
given it, and a second time by Chairman Litton to remind him once
again that the topic of the public hearing was the deferral, not aban-
doned mines. Harton then quickly concluded his off-topic discussion.
Steinburg was treated no differently. Again he was reminded of the
topic of the public hearing, but rather than address the deferral, he
became argumentative and disruptive. When it became clear to Chair-
man Litton that Steinburg had no intention of addressing the deferral
but instead intended to continue discussing irrelevant topics, he inter-
vened to cut off Steinburg’s comments.
Exercising this type of discretion is precisely what we have
observed that presiding officers may do. "[O]fficials presiding over
such meetings must have discretion . . . to cut off speech which they
reasonably perceive to be, or imminently to threaten, a disruption of
the orderly and fair progress of the discussion, whether by virtue of
its irrelevance, its duration, or its very tone and manner." Collinson,
895 F.2d at 1000 (Phillips, J., concurring) (first emphasis added).
Chairman Litton consistently stated that he was cutting Steinburg off
because his comments were irrelevant and duplicative of what had
come before. It is also plain from the videotape that Steinburg had
raised his voice, had become argumentative, and was refusing to
abide by rulings and directions of the chair. In view of these facts, we
STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM. 21
do not agree with Steinburg’s assertions that Chairman Litton’s treat-
ment of him was inconsistent with Chairman Litton’s treatment of
other speakers and that Chairman Litton discriminated against Stein-
burg’s viewpoint.
We conclude that Chairman Litton acted well within his discretion
as chair of the meeting to take the steps he deemed necessary to retain
control, restore order, and resume progress of the meeting, and there
simply is no evidence in the record to support Steinburg’s claim that
he was silenced for expressing his viewpoint. Again, on this issue, we
affirm the summary judgment of the district court.
III
Finally, Steinburg contends that the district court abused its discre-
tion in denying his motion to file an amended complaint to assert
claims against the commissioners in their individual capacities, to
challenge the Commission’s time, place, and manner regulations, and
to add Officer Profita as a defendant.
The district court denied Steinburg’s motion, noting that Steinburg
had failed to show good cause for modifying the scheduling order
established under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and that,
in any event, to grant the motion would be an act of futility because
Steinburg’s proposed amended complaint would not survive summary
judgment. The court made this assessment after discovery in the case
had been fully completed and after the court had assessed Steinburg’s
claims on the merits.
Of course the general rule is that leave to amend a complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) should be freely given, see
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), unless "the amendment
would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith
on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been
futile," Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted). A district court’s decision to deny a motion
to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Glaser v. Enzo Bio-
chem, Inc., 464 F.3d 474, 476 (4th Cir. 2006).
22 STEINBURG v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMM.
Steinburg has pointed to no material in his proposed amended com-
plaint that would have changed the analysis conducted by the district
court in the context of the developed record, on which the court
entered summary judgment against him. His proposed additional
claims were still based on the events of the meeting on October 18,
2005, in which the defendants cut off his presentation and excluded
him from the Commission meeting. Recognizing that discovery was
fully completed and the district court had an excellent view of the
potential claims, we can find no basis for concluding that the district
court abused its discretion.
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.