Occupy Columbia v. Nikki Haley

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1258

OCCUPY COLUMBIA; WALID HAKIM; MELISSA HARMON; BRADLEY
POWELL; TIMOTHY LISZEWSKI; DAVID BLAND; ASHLEY BLEWER; DAVID
ARROYO; GADSON BENNETT; JOSHUA ANDERSON; SEBASTIAN PENA;
JUSTINE WOODS; JOHANNA CAPLE; JOHN RUTLEDGE; L. SHAW
MITCHELL,

Plaintiffs – Appellees,

v.

NIKKI HALEY, Governor of South Carolina; LEROY SMITH,
Director of the South Carolina Public Safety; ZACHERY WISE,
Chief of Police of the South Carolina Bureau of Protective
Services; JAMES CARR; JOE HODGE; ANDREW SCHMIDT; MARVIN
HARRIS, III,

Defendants – Appellants,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HARVEY S. PEELER, JR., Chairman of
the South Carolina State House Committee; M RICHBOURG
ROBERSON, Divison of General Services; STERLING L. MORRISON,
Division of General Services; CURTIS LOFTIS, State
Treasurer; RICHARD ECKSTROM, Comptroller General; HUGH
LEATHERMAN, Chairman Senate Finance Committee; BRIAN WHITE,
Chairman House Ways and Means Committee; SOUTH CAROLINA
BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; MARCIA ADAMS, Executive Director
of the South Carolina Budget and Control Board; CARLA
GRIFFIN, Division of General Services,

Defendants,

MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD-FALTAS,

Intervenor.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-03253-CMC)

Argued: October 31, 2013 Decided: December 16, 2013

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and THACKER, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion,
in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge King joined.

ARGUED: Kevin Alan Hall, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. Andrew Sims Radeker,
HARRISON & RADEKER, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: M. Todd Carroll, Karl S. Bowers, Jr., WOMBLE CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant
Governor Nikki R. Haley. Michael S. Pauley, Vinton D. Lide,
LIDE AND PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina, for All
Remaining Appellants. Robert J. Butcher, Deborah J. Butcher,
Ronald Wade Moak, THE CAMDEN LAW FIRM, PA, Camden, South
Carolina, for Appellees.

2
THACKER, Circuit Judge:

For 31 continuous days, a group of individuals,

referring to themselves as “Occupy Columbia,” conducted a 24-

hour per day protest on the grounds of the South Carolina State

House in Columbia, South Carolina. On November 16, 2011, South

Carolina Governor Nikki Haley directed law enforcement to remove

any individual associated with Occupy Columbia who remained on

State House grounds after 6:00 p.m. that day. Shortly after

6:00 p.m. on the evening of November 16, 2011, 19 members of

Occupy Columbia remained on State House grounds. They were all

arrested.

Appellees, Occupy Columbia and 14 individual

protestors (collectively, “Occupy Columbia”), brought this

action against a number of individuals, including Governor

Haley; Leroy Smith, Director of the Department of Public Safety;

Zachary Wise, Chief of Police of the Bureau of Protective

Services; and four South Carolina law enforcement officers

(collectively, “Appellants”), seeking injunctive relief and

damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the South Carolina

Constitution, and South Carolina’s common law. 1 Appellants

1
Occupy Columbia also sued State Senator Harvey S. Peeler,
Jr. and the State of South Carolina. The claims against Senator
Peeler and the State of South Carolina were dismissed without
prejudice on December 14, 2011. Finally, Occupy Columbia sued
various members of the Budget and Control Board and the Division
(Continued)
3
sought dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In granting in part and

denying in part Appellants’ motion, the district court rejected

Appellants’ assertions of qualified immunity at this stage in

the proceedings.

In this appeal, Appellants seek review of the district

court’s denial of qualified immunity. Because Occupy Columbia

has alleged a violation of a clearly established First Amendment

right -- that is, the right to protest on State House grounds

after 6:00 p.m. in the absence of a valid time, place, and

manner restriction -- we affirm.

I.

A.

On October 15, 2011, Occupy Columbia began a 24-hour

per day protest on the grounds of the South Carolina State House

in Columbia, South Carolina. Occupy Columbia alleges that its

“occupation” consisted of “protesting around-the-clock” at the

of General Services, including the State Treasurer, the State
Comptroller General, the Chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, and the Chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee (the “Budget and Control Board Defendants”). The
claims against the Budget and Control Board Defendants were
dismissed as moot on August 17, 2012.

4
State House. J.A. 114 (Third Am. Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 34).2

According to Occupy Columbia, “[p]hysically occupying the State

House grounds, including sleeping overnight on the grounds, is

the only effective manner in which Occupy Columbia members can

express their message of taking back our state to create a more

just, economically egalitarian society.” Id. (Compl. ¶ 35).

In its Third Amended Complaint, Occupy Columbia

alleges that after its members “inquired as to permitting

requirements” for the State House grounds, they were given a

handout from the Budget and Control Board’s Division of General

Services (the “Division of General Services”) and were “told

they would probably not receive a permit if they applied.” J.A.

117 (Compl. ¶ 50). 3 In any event, Occupy Columbia alleges, “no

application for a permit is available on any public source such

as the internet or at the front counter of the Division of

General Services.” Id. (Compl. ¶ 51). Moreover, a member of

the Division of General Services allegedly later informed Occupy

Columbia “that under no circumstances would any permission to

2
Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed
by the parties in this appeal.
3
The Division of General Services is responsible for
“maintain[ing] the grounds surrounding the State House.” J.A.
340 (Answer ¶ 15).

5
sleep or use tents on the State House grounds” have been given.

Id. (Compl. ¶ 50).

On November 16, 2011, after 31 days of Occupy

Columbia’s continuous “occupation” of State House grounds, State

Senator Harvey S. Peeler, Jr. sent a letter to Governor Haley

asking “what the Budget and Control Board will be doing about

the Occupy Columbia group” in light of the approaching holiday

season “and with the Governor’s Carol Lighting on November

28th.” J.A. 135. Governor Haley responded that very day by

sending a letter to the Director of the Department of Public

Safety and to the Chief of Police of the Bureau of Protective

Services seeking their “assistance in removing any individual

associated with the ‘Occupy Columbia’ group, as well as his or

her belongings, who remains on Statehouse grounds after 6:00

p.m. without written authorization from the Budget and Control

Board.” Id. at 133. In her letter, Governor Haley cited a

Budget and Control Board policy “requir[ing] any individual or

organization that wishes to remain at the Statehouse after 6:00

p.m. to receive written permission from the agency.” Id. at

132.

In support of this purported 6:00 p.m. policy,

Governor Haley relied on a document entitled “Conditions for Use

of South Carolina State House Grounds” (the “Conditions for

Use”). Paragraph 8 of the Conditions for Use provided:

6
 All activities on the grounds or in the State House
must strictly adhere to the times as scheduled to
insure that the activities will not conflict with any
other scheduled activities. Activities will not be
scheduled beyond 5:00 p.m. in the State House and 6:00
p.m. on the grounds unless special provisions in
writing have been made to extend the time.

Id. at 250 (Compl. Ex. 7) (“Condition 8”).

Governor Haley’s letter continued by explaining, “no

one associated with the ‘Occupy Columbia’ group appears to have

even sought such permission, much less received it, yet they

have essentially taken to living on Statehouse property.” J.A.

132. Finally, Governor Haley’s letter indicated that there were

a number of problems associated with Occupy Columbia, including

damage to the State House grounds and the need for extra

security. In addition to her letter, Governor Haley held a

press conference on November 16, 2011, during which she

explained that anyone present on State House grounds after 6:00

p.m. that evening would be removed.

Shortly after 6:00 p.m. on the evening of November 16,

2011, 19 members of Occupy Columbia remained on State House

grounds. They were all arrested. Occupy Columbia alleges that

at the time of the arrests, its members “were assembled on the

[S]tate [H]ouse grounds, protesting and petitioning our

government, and [they] were not violating any law.” J.A. 122-23

(Compl. ¶ 83). During the early morning hours of November 17,

2011, those members of Occupy Columbia who were arrested were

7
released from the detention center on their personal

recognizance. All charges against them were ultimately

dismissed.

B.

On November 23, 2011, Occupy Columbia filed suit in

state court against a number of individuals, including

Appellants. The lawsuit sought an order enjoining Appellants

from interfering with Occupy Columbia’s 24-hour occupation of

the State House grounds. The state court issued an ex parte

temporary restraining order (“TRO”), authorizing Occupy Columbia

to continue occupying the State House grounds. On November 30,

2011, Appellants removed this case to federal court, and the

parties agreed to extend the state court’s TRO until 5:00 p.m.

on December 15, 2011.

On December 14, 2011, the district court granted

Occupy Columbia’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding

that Appellants’ “6:00 p.m. policy” and any unwritten or

informal rules prohibiting camping or sleeping on State House

grounds were not valid time, place, and manner restrictions on

Occupy Columbia’s First Amendment rights. The district court

explained that although Appellants were permitted to regulate

camping and sleeping on State House grounds with reasonable

time, place, and manner restrictions, no such restrictions

existed in October or November of 2011.

8
 After the district court granted Occupy Columbia’s

motion for preliminary injunction, the Budget and Control Board

passed an emergency regulation on December 20, 2011, pursuant to

its authority under S.C. Code §§ 10-1-30 and 1-23-130. 4 This

emergency regulation prohibited the “use of the State House

grounds and all buildings located on the grounds for camping,

sleeping, or any living accommodation purposes” (“Regulation 19-

480”). J.A. 106. 5 In light of Regulation 19-480, Occupy

Columbia and Appellants filed cross-motions to modify the

preliminary injunction order. The district court denied both

motions, concluding that amendments to the preliminary
4
Pursuant to S.C. Code § 10-1-30, the Director of the
Division of General Services “may authorize the use of the State
House lobbies, the State House steps and grounds, and other
public buildings and grounds in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the board.” S.C. Code § 10-1-30. Any such
“regulations must contain provisions to insure that the public
health, safety, and welfare will be protected in the use of the
areas including reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions
and application periods before use.” Id. Finally, “[o]ther
restrictions may be imposed on the use of the areas as are
necessary for the conduct of business in those areas and the
maintenance of the dignity, decorum, and aesthetics of the
areas.” Id.

In addition, pursuant to S.C. Code § 1-23-130(A), “[i]f an
agency finds that an imminent peril to public health, safety, or
welfare requires immediate promulgation of an emergency
regulation before compliance with the procedures prescribed in
this article . . . , the agency may file the regulation with the
Legislative Council and a statement of the situation requiring
immediate promulgation.” S.C. Code § 1-23-130(A).
5
Regulation 19-480 was codified at S.C. Code § 10-1-35 on
March 29, 2012. See 2012 S.C. Acts 134.

9
injunction order were unnecessary because the order only

enjoined any current policy, not any new policy or regulation,

such as Regulation 19-480. The district court further held that

Regulation 19-480 was a valid time, place, and manner

restriction.

On January 5, 2012, Occupy Columbia filed a Second

Amended Complaint, adding a claim for damages pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 6 On January 19, 2012, the Budget and Control

Board Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint

pursuant Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that

Regulation 19-480 mooted the claims against them. During

briefing of that motion, Occupy Columbia revealed that the

Budget and Control Board had revised Condition 8 on January 10,

2012. The revised Condition 8 deleted any references to

specific time limitations for the use of State House grounds.

Therefore, on August 17, 2012, the district court granted the

Budget and Control Board Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding

that Occupy Columbia’s claims for injunctive relief against the

Budget and Control Board Defendants were mooted by S.C. Code

6
The caption in Occupy Columbia’s First Amended Complaint,
which was filed on January 3, 2012, “failed to accurately
reflect the Defendants” in the case. J.A. 21. As such, the
district court directed Occupy Columbia “to file a Second
Amended Complaint no later than January 6, 2012, making only
this correction.” Id.

10
§ 10-1-35 (formerly Regulation 19-480) and the removal of the

6:00 p.m. policy from Condition 8.

Occupy Columbia filed a Third Amended Complaint on

September 20, 2012, adding additional plaintiffs to the case.

On October 1, 2012, Appellants moved to dismiss the Third

Amended Complaint or for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c), arguing

that Occupy Columbia’s claims for injunctive relief were moot,

and that Appellants were entitled to qualified immunity as to

Occupy Columbia’s claims for damages. On February 7, 2013, the

district court dismissed as moot Occupy Columbia’s claims for

injunctive relief. However, the district court denied the

motion to dismiss Occupy Columbia’s claims for damages,

concluding that Appellants were not entitled to qualified

immunity at this stage.

In addressing Appellants’ qualified immunity

arguments, the district court first agreed with Appellants “that

it was not clearly established at the time of [Occupy

Columbia]’s arrests that there was a constitutional right to

camp, sleep, or live continuously on the State House grounds.”

J.A. 423-24. However, the district court then reviewed the

allegations in the Third Amended Complaint and concluded that

Occupy Columbia had also alleged that their “constitutional

rights were violated when they were arrested for their presence

11
and protests on the State House grounds after 6:00 p.m.” Id. at

424. As to this separately alleged constitutional violation,

the district court rejected Appellants’ qualified immunity

argument and held that “it was clearly established that [Occupy

Columbia] had a First Amendment right to protest absent a valid

time, place, and manner restriction.” Id. at 431. Therefore,

the district court concluded Appellants were not entitled to

qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims for damages as alleged

in the Third Amended Complaint.

II.

On February 25, 2013, Appellants filed a notice of

appeal, seeking review of the district court’s qualified

immunity ruling. Ordinarily, we do not possess appellate

jurisdiction over interlocutory orders -- such as the denial of

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss or the denial of a Rule 12(c)

motion for judgment on the pleadings -- because such decisions

are not final judgments within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

See Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292,

304 (4th Cir. 2006) (explaining that generally, a district

court’s denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not an appealable

ruling); Coleman by Lee v. Stanziani, 735 F.2d 118, 120 (3d Cir.

1984) (“An order denying a Rule 12(c) motion . . . is a prime

example of an interlocutory order.”). A district court’s denial

of qualified immunity, however, “is immediately appealable under

12
the collateral order doctrine to the extent that the

availability of this defense turns on a question of law.”

Ridpath, 447 F.3d at 305 (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.

511, 530 (1985)). “This principle applies whether qualified

immunity was rejected at the dismissal stage (as in these

proceedings), or at the summary judgment stage.” Id.

Therefore, because the district court’s decision here turned on

a question of law, we possess jurisdiction under the collateral

order doctrine to review the denial of qualified immunity.

III.

A.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule

12(c) is assessed under the same standards as a motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,

178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). As such, we review de novo a

district court’s denial of qualified immunity raised in a motion

under either Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c). See id.; Ridpath v.

Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 306 (4th Cir.

2006).

A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a

complaint. See Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d 749, 752 (4th

Cir. 2012). To survive such a motion, the complaint must

contain facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level” and “state a claim to relief that is

13
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555, 570 (2007). “Although a motion pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) invites an inquiry into the legal sufficiency of the

complaint, not an analysis of potential defenses to the claims

set forth therein, dismissal nevertheless is appropriate when

the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a

meritorious affirmative defense.” Brockington v. Boykins, 637

F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks

omitted). One such defense is qualified immunity. See id.

B.

Occupy Columbia relies on several exhibits and

affidavits -- all of which were “incorporated . . . by

reference” to the Third Amended Complaint, see J.A. 109 (Compl.

¶ 7) -- in support of its argument that Appellants are not

entitled to qualified immunity. Specifically, Occupy Columbia

cites a number of affidavits to explain that, in response to

Governor Haley’s November 16, 2011 letter and press conference,

members of Occupy Columbia removed all camping supplies from the

State House grounds by 5:15 p.m. See Appellees’ Br. 9-10

(citing J.A. 233-34, 238-39, 245-46, 304). We must therefore

define the universe of documents we may consider in evaluating

this appeal.

In resolving a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or

Rule 12(c), a district court cannot consider matters outside the

14
pleadings without converting the motion into one for summary

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). A court may, however,

consider a “written instrument” attached as an exhibit to a

pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), “as well as [documents]

attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral

to the complaint and authentic.” Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l

Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). Rule 10(c) states,

“[a] copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a

pleading is part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 10(c) (emphasis supplied). There is no uniform rule

among the circuits with respect to whether an affidavit attached

as an exhibit to a pleading is a “written instrument” such that

it may be considered by a district court in resolving a Rule

12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) motion.

The Third Circuit has held that an affidavit does not

constitute a “written instrument” within the meaning of Rule

10(c). Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 339 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989).

“To hold otherwise,” the court reasoned, “would elevate form

over substance by drawing a distinction between an affidavit

filed with [a pleading] and an affidavit filed with a motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. The court noted, “the types

of exhibits incorporated within the pleadings by Rule 10(c)

consist largely of documentary evidence, specifically,

contracts, notes, and other writing[s] on which [a party’s]

15
action or defense is based.” Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted). Finally, the court explained that considering

affidavits “would further blur the distinction between summary

judgment and dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted.” Id.

In contrast, the Seventh Circuit “has interpreted the

term ‘written instrument’ as used in Rule 10(c) to include

documents such as affidavits,” N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc.

v. City of South Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 453 (7th Cir. 1998),

explaining that it “believe[s] the broader interpretation

comports with the traditionally generous nature in which [the

court] view[s] pleadings,” id. at 453 n.4; see also Schnell v.

City of Chicago, 407 F.2d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1969), overruled

on other grounds by City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507

(1973).

We need not decide the propriety of considering an

affidavit attached as an exhibit to a pleading in the instant

appeal. Here, the district court refused to consider any of the

“affidavits purportedly incorporated by reference in the Third

Amended Complaint” in making its qualified immunity

determination. J.A. 417 n.1. In fact, to avoid converting

Appellants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) into a

motion for summary judgment, the district court explained it was

“rely[ing] solely on the allegations in the Third Amended

16
Complaint and those documents that are integral to the

complaint.” Id. 7 We will do the same.

Appellants argue that, despite the district court’s

explicit statement to the contrary, the court did in fact rely

on materials outside of the Third Amended Complaint in denying

Appellants’ motion to dismiss. See Appellants’ Br. 8.

Specifically, Appellants contend that the district court’s order

incorporated by reference its earlier rulings on Occupy

Columbia’s motion for preliminary injunction, which contained

evidentiary evaluations. In addition, Appellants note the

district court’s order referenced the Budget and Control Board

Defendants’ previous statements in this litigation concerning

how the Budget and Control Board regulated the State House

7
According to the district court, the following documents
were integral to the complaint: (1) Governor Haley’s letter to
Appellants Smith and Wise; (2) Senator Peeler’s letter to
Governor Haley; and (3) the Budget and Control Board’s
Conditions for Use. J.A. 417 n.1. We agree and note that, even
at the Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) stage, the district court
properly considered these documents. Not only can they be
fairly characterized as written instruments attached to the
Third Amended Complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), but they
were also explicitly relied on by the parties in briefing the
Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) motion, and their authenticity has
not been disputed, see Philips, 572 F.3d at 180; Blankenship v.
Manchin, 471 F.3d 523, 526 n.1 (4th Cir. 2006).

The district court further noted that even if it were to
consider the affidavits, it “would reach the same result as the
affidavits support [Occupy Columbia]’s position.” J.A. 417 n.1.

17
grounds. After carefully reviewing the district court’s order

below, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions.

To the extent the district court mentioned materials

beyond the Third Amended Complaint and attached exhibits, it

appears the court was doing so for illustrative and background

purposes only -- the court did not rely on those materials in

making its qualified immunity determination. Indeed, the

district court referred to its earlier rulings on Occupy

Columbia’s motion for preliminary injunction through footnotes

in its “Background” section, simply explaining that it “assumes

familiarity” with these orders. J.A. 419 n.4. As for the

Budget and Control Board Defendants’ previous statements in this

litigation, the court’s “find[ing] that there was no time

restriction on protests on State House grounds,” id. at 426, is

supported simply by the text of Condition 8. See id. at 425-26

(characterizing Condition 8 as a method for obtaining

reservations and explaining that “[t]he text of Condition 8

neither purported to close the State House grounds to protestors

after 6:00 p.m. ‘unless special provisions in writing’ were

obtained, nor to authorize the arrests of protestors for their

presence on the grounds after 6:00 p.m. if they did not receive

‘special provisions in writing’”).

18
 IV.

Appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified

immunity. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that

“shields government officials performing discretionary functions

from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983,

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

would have known.” Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ.,

447 F.3d 292, 306 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Qualified immunity does not protect government

officials when they are “plainly incompetent or . . . knowingly

violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).

“But, in gray areas, where the law is unsettled or murky,

qualified immunity affords protection to [a government official]

who takes an action that is not clearly forbidden -- even if the

action is later deemed wrongful.” Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 F.3d

279, 286 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Government officials are entitled to the defense of

qualified immunity unless a § 1983 claim satisfies the following

two-prong test: “(1) the allegations underlying the claim, if

true, substantiate a violation of a federal statutory or

constitutional right; and (2) this violation was of a clearly

established right of which a reasonable person would have

19
known.” Ridpath, 447 F.3d at 306 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

A.

Before proceeding to the two-prong qualified immunity

test, “our first task is to identify the specific right that

[Occupy Columbia] asserts was infringed by the challenged

conduct, recognizing that the right must be defined at the

appropriate level of particularity.” Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d

525, 530 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Appellants’ primary

contention on appeal is that the district court “incorrectly

defined the alleged right at issue” as a generalized right to

protest on public property, rather than a right to live

continuously on State House grounds. Appellants’ Br. 13. This

threshold error, according to Appellants, caused the district

court to misapply both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis

outlined above. We disagree.

A careful examination of the Third Amended Complaint

and the attached exhibits (excluding the affidavits) leads us to

conclude that Occupy Columbia has alleged two separate First

Amendment violations, arising out of: (1) the requirement that

Occupy Columbia vacate State House grounds by 6:00 p.m. on

November 16, 2011; and (2) the arrest of members of Occupy

Columbia when they were assembled on State House grounds after

6:00 p.m. on November 16, 2011.

20
 1.

There is no doubt Occupy Columbia’s pleadings more

than sufficiently allege that Appellants violated Occupy

Columbia’s First Amendment rights by requiring Occupy Columbia

to vacate State House grounds by 6:00 p.m. on November 16, 2011.

The Third Amended Complaint is clear that Occupy Columbia’s

“occupation” consisted of “protesting around-the-clock” at the

State House. J.A. 114 (Compl. ¶ 34). Occupy Columbia alleges,

“[p]hysically occupying the State House grounds, including

sleeping overnight on the grounds, is the only effective manner

in which Occupy Columbia members can express their message of

taking back our state to create a more just, economically

egalitarian society.” Id. (Compl. ¶ 35). Indeed, as part of

its occupation, Occupy Columbia established a “medical

committee,” a “food service committee,” and a “security

committee.” Id. at 118 (Compl. ¶ 57). Throughout its Third

Amended Complaint, Occupy Columbia asserts that its First

Amendment rights were violated when Appellants prevented members

of Occupy Columbia from engaging in the expressive conduct of

living continuously on State House grounds. Therefore, Occupy

Columbia has unquestionably alleged that its First Amendment

rights were violated when Appellants required its members to

remove their camping equipment and vacate the State House

grounds by 6:00 p.m. on November 16, 2011.

21
 With this first alleged constitutional violation in

mind, the district court briefly analyzed Appellants’ qualified

immunity defense and held that, at the time of Occupy Columbia’s

removal from State House grounds, it was not clearly established

that camping, sleeping, or living continuously on public

property was expressive conduct protected by the First

Amendment. The district court explained there are no Supreme

Court or Fourth Circuit cases that clearly establish a First

Amendment right to camp or sleep on public property in

connection with protests. See J.A. 424 n.9 (citing Clark v.

Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984)

(assuming without deciding, for purposes of its time, place, and

manner analysis, that “overnight sleeping in connection with the

demonstration is expressive conduct protected to some extent by

the First Amendment”)). 8

8
At least one federal district court has reached the
opposite conclusion. See Occupy Nashville v. Haslam, ––- F.
Supp. 2d –––-, 2013 WL 2644081, at *15 (M.D. Tenn. June 12,
2013) (denying qualified immunity for state officials and
holding that “plaintiffs had a clearly established right to
utilize the Plaza to engage in overnight protest activity”). In
Occupy Nashville, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee explained, “[t]he plaintiffs’
protests contained a fundamental constitutional core, regardless
of the secondary effects that resulted from the manner in which
they chose to exercise it.” Id. “At any rate, the plaintiffs
were not arrested because of those secondary effects, they were
arrested for their presence on the Plaza, even though no law
. . . prevented them from being present there.” Id. (emphasis
in original).

22
 The district court did not decide whether Occupy

Columbia’s allegations would in fact substantiate a First

Amendment violation because, assuming a right to camp and sleep

on public property as part of a protest exists, it was not

clearly established. Accordingly, the court held that the

defense of qualified immunity barred any claims for damages

against Appellants arising out of the first alleged

constitutional violation. This holding is not the subject of

the instant appeal. 9

2.

We next examine whether Occupy Columbia’s pleadings

sufficiently allege that Appellants violated Occupy Columbia’s

9
Nevertheless, Occupy Columbia asks us to “hold that the
camping and sleeping in which Occupy Columbia was engaged at the
State House was constitutionally protected speech.” Appellees’
Br. 45. This issue is not before us. Indeed, the district
court’s grant of qualified immunity with respect to the first
alleged constitutional violation was not a final appealable
order because it did not dispose of all of Occupy Columbia’s
claims against Appellants. See United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d
338, 344 (4th Cir. 2010) (“Generally, a final decision ends the
litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do
but execute the judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Moreover, Occupy Columbia has not asked us to exercise pendent
appellate jurisdiction to consider this issue. See Evans v.
Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636, 658 (4th Cir. 2012) (“Our exercise of
pendent appellate jurisdiction is proper only when an issue is
(1) inextricably intertwined with the decision of the lower
court to deny qualified immunity or (2) consideration of the
additional issue is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the
qualified immunity question.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).

23
First Amendment rights by arresting them for their presence and

protest on State House grounds after 6:00 p.m. on November 16,

2011. Appellants contend Occupy Columbia’s pleadings allege

only a violation of “the right to live indefinitely on public

property.” Appellants’ Br. 17. According to Appellants, “the

Constitution does not guarantee a right to squat indefinitely on

public property, which is precisely what the [members of Occupy

Columbia] allege they were doing before and at the time they

were arrested.” Id. at 14 (emphasis supplied). Occupy Columbia

argues, however, “[w]hen the facts are viewed in Occupy

Columbia’s favor, the third amended complaint suggests that the

Occupy Columbia arrestees were arrested when they were simply

protesting as part of Occupy Columbia.” Appellees’ Br. 36.

It is true that at the heart of Occupy Columbia’s

Third Amended Complaint are allegations that Appellants violated

Occupy Columbia’s First Amendment rights by interfering with

Occupy Columbia’s ability to continuously camp and sleep on

State House grounds. Specifically, the complaint alleges that

Occupy Columbia was determined to establish a “24-hour-per-

day/7-days-per-week actual, physical occupation” of the State

House grounds. J.A. 113 (Compl. ¶ 27). According to Occupy

Columbia’s complaint, “literal occupation of the State House

grounds 24 hours a day is and . . . was a core component to the

Occupy Columbia movement.” Id. at 114 (Compl. ¶ 35).

24
 Despite Appellants’ assertions to the contrary,

however, the “right to squat indefinitely on State House

grounds” is not the only right Occupy Columbia’s Third Amended

Complaint alleges was violated. At the time its members were

arrested, Occupy Columbia alleges they “were assembled on the

[S]tate [H]ouse grounds, protesting and petitioning our

government, and . . . were not violating any law.” J.A. 122-23

(Compl. ¶ 83) (emphasis supplied). In addition, the Third

Amended Complaint alleges that Appellants wrongfully arrested

members of Occupy Columbia while they “were exercising their

fundamental constitutional rights of Free Speech, Assembly, and

Petition.” Id. at 122 (Compl. ¶ 81). Occupy Columbia further

alleges that its members “had a constitutional right to protest,

petition the government, and assemble on [S]tate [H]ouse

grounds.” Id. at 123 (Compl. ¶ 85) (emphasis supplied).

Crucially, these paragraphs do not allege that members of Occupy

Columbia were arrested for their continued occupation and

camping on the State House grounds. Rather, they state that the

arrests occurred when Occupy Columbia was simply assembled on

State House grounds for the purpose of protesting and

petitioning the government. Thus, Occupy Columbia has pled a

separate constitutional violation arising solely out of their

arrest for assembling on State House grounds after 6:00 p.m. on

November 16, 2011.

25
 Moreover, Governor Haley’s letter, which prompted the

arrests, did not generally order the removal of any individuals

who were camping, sleeping, or living on State House grounds.

Instead, it was focused solely on Occupy Columbia; it directed

Appellant Smith and Appellant Wise to “remov[e] any individual

associated with the ‘Occupy Columbia’ group, as well as his or

her belongings, who remains on Statehouse grounds after 6:00

p.m. without written authorization from the Budget and Control

Board.” J.A. 133; id. at 119 (Compl. ¶ 61). This further

supports Occupy Columbia’s allegations of a second

constitutional violation arising purely out of lawful protest

activity.

Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded

that Occupy Columbia’s complaint and exhibits thereto

sufficiently alleged that Appellants violated Occupy Columbia’s

First Amendment rights when they arrested them for their

presence and protest on State House grounds after 6:00 p.m. on

November 16, 2011.

B.

Having concluded that the district court correctly

defined the right at issue, we must next decide whether

Appellants are entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified

immunity. As explained, qualified immunity provides government

officials who are performing discretionary functions a defense

26
from liability for § 1983 civil damages unless: “(1) the

allegations underlying the claim, if true, substantiate a

violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right; and

(2) this violation was of a clearly established right of which a

reasonable person would have known.” Ridpath v. Bd. of

Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 306 (4th Cir. 2006)

(internal quotation marks omitted). It is within our discretion

to decide “which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity

analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances

in the particular case at hand.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.

223, 236 (2009). Each prong is analyzed below.

1.

In reviewing the denial of qualified immunity, “the

nature of the right allegedly violated must be defined ‘at a

high level of particularity.’” Rogers v. Pendelton, 249 F.3d

279, 286 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,

178 F.3d 231, 250-51 (4th Cir. 1999)). Stated at the

appropriate level of particularity, the right allegedly violated

by Appellants is the right to be present and protest on State

House grounds after 6:00 p.m. Therefore, the qualified immunity

analysis must begin with this alleged constitutional violation

in mind, and we must simply determine “whether [Occupy

Columbia’s] allegations, if true, establish a constitutional

violation.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736 (2002).

27
 The First Amendment guarantees the right to free

speech. U.S. Const. amend. I; Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S.

830, 837 (1982) (“[I]t is fundamental that the First Amendment

prohibits governmental infringement on the right of free

speech.”). As the Supreme Court has stated, “[t]here is no

doubt that as a general matter peaceful picketing and leafleting

are expressive activities involving ‘speech’ protecting by the

First Amendment.” United State v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176

(1983) (collecting cases). “It is also true that ‘public

places’ historically associated with the free exercise of

expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks,

are considered, without more, to be ‘public forums.’” Id. at

177 (collecting cases). The South Carolina State House grounds

are the “site of the State Government,” Edwards v. South

Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235 (1963), and comprise “an area of two

city blocks open to the general public,” id. at 230. As such,

we treat the area outside of the State House as a public forum

for First Amendment purposes. Cf. Grace, 461 U.S. at 180 (“The

public sidewalks forming the perimeter of the Supreme Court

grounds, in our view, are public forums and should be treated as

such for First Amendment purposes.”). 10

10
The district court also characterized the State House
grounds as a “public forum.” J.A. 11. The specific character
of property affects the government’s ability to limit expressive
(Continued)
28
 As we have recognized, “[a] bedrock First Amendment

principle is that citizens have a right to voice dissent from

government policies.” Tobey v. Jones, 706 F.3d 379, 391 (4th

Cir. 2013). Moreover, speech regarding “matters of public

concern . . . is at the heart of the First Amendment’s

protection.” Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders,

Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 758-59 (1985) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “Speech deals with matters of public concern when it

can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political,

social, or other concern to the community.” Snyder v. Phelps,

131 S. Ct. 1207, 1216 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Occupy Columbia’s Third Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges

that its members were engaged in protected speech at the time

they were arrested. Specifically, the complaint alleges Occupy

Colombia’s members were assembled on State House grounds (a

public forum) and were “protesting and petitioning our

government.” J.A. 122-23 (Compl. ¶ 83). Occupy Columbia’s

allegations thus satisfy the standards to qualify as protected

speech.

conduct. See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n,
460 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1983) (describing the differences between:
(1) “quintessential public forums;” (2) “public property which
the state has opened for use by the public as a place for
expressive activity;” and (3) “[p]ublic property which is not by
tradition or designation a forum for public communication”).

29
 Although Occupy Columbia alleges it was engaged in

protected speech, this does not end the inquiry. Even protected

speech is subject to government regulation since “protected

speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all

times.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473

U.S. 788, 799 (1985); see also id. at 799-800 (“Nothing in the

Constitution requires the Government freely to grant access to

all who wish to exercise their right to free speech on every

type of Government property without regard to the nature of the

property or to the disruption that might be caused by the

speaker’s activities.”). To that end, the state may “enforce

regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which

are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a

significant government interest, and leave open ample

alternative channels of communication.” Perry Educ. Ass’n v.

Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983); see also

Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)

(explaining that “even in a public forum the government may

impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of

protected speech”). Therefore, in the absence of a valid time,

place, and manner restriction, Occupy Columbia had a First

Amendment right to assemble on State House grounds after 6:00

p.m., and its Third Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that

this right was violated.

30
 Appellants contend that, at the time of the arrests,

South Carolina had in place a series of criminal statutes

regulating the use of State House grounds and that those

statutes were valid time, place, and manner restrictions. See

S.C. Code § 10-11-20 (making it “unlawful to use the State House

or grounds for any purpose not authorized by law”); id. § 10-11-

30 (making it unlawful “to trespass upon the grass plots or

flower beds of the grounds of the State house” or to “cut down,

deface, mutilate or otherwise injure any of the statues, trees,

shrubs, grasses or flowers on the grounds”); id. § 10-11-330

(making it unlawful “to obstruct or impede passage within the

capitol grounds or building”). As valid time, place, and manner

restrictions -- the argument goes -- Appellants “could rightly

enforce them against [Occupy Columbia].” Appellants’ Br. 28

(emphasis supplied). Appellants’ argument misses the point.

It may well be that these statutes are in fact valid

time, place, and manner restrictions on an individual’s ability

to protest on State House grounds. It may also be true that,

under appropriate circumstances, Appellants could enforce these

statutes against individuals on State House grounds, including

members of Occupy Columbia. Yet, what Appellants “could” do is

irrelevant here. What matters, at this stage, is whether

Appellants can demonstrate an entitlement to the defense of

qualified immunity based on the Third Amended Complaint and the

31
exhibits attached thereto. See Brockington v. Boykins, 637 F.3d

503, 506 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that dismissal “is

appropriate when the face of the complaint clearly reveals the

existence of a meritorious affirmative defense” (emphasis

supplied)).

On the face of the Third Amended Complaint, members of

Occupy Columbia were violating no law when they were arrested.

Instead, the complaint alleges that members of Occupy Columbia

were arrested simply for their presence on State House grounds

after 6:00 p.m. The motivation for the arrests, according to

the complaint, was Governor Haley’s letter, which specifically

instructed Appellant Smith and Appellant Wise to “remov[e] any

individual associated with the ‘Occupy Columbia’ group, as well

as his or her belongings, who remains on Statehouse grounds

after 6:00 p.m. without written authorization from the Budget

and Control Board.” J.A. 133. The Third Amended Complaint

contains no allegations to support the notion that Occupy

Columbia was violating S.C. Code §§ 10-11-20, 10-11-30, or 10-

11-330 when its members were arrested on November 16, 2011.

Therefore, at the Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c) stage, Occupy Columbia

has sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation

notwithstanding the existence of these statutes and despite

32
Appellants’ contention that the statutes “could” rightly be

enforced against Occupy Columbia. 11

Appellants also argue that Condition 8 was a valid

time, place, and manner restriction, requiring Occupy Columbia

to receive permission to remain on State House grounds after

6:00 p.m. Again, we are not persuaded.

Condition 8 provides:

All activities on the grounds or in the State House
must strictly adhere to the times as scheduled to
insure that the activities will not conflict with any
other scheduled activities. Activities will not be
scheduled beyond 5:00 p.m. in the State House and 6:00
p.m. on the grounds unless special provisions in
writing have been made to extend the time.

J.A. 250 (Compl. Ex. 7). On its face, Condition 8 is simply a

mechanism for groups to obtain reservations to utilize the State

House grounds in ways that “will not conflict with any other

scheduled activities.” Id. It does not, as Appellants contend,

close the State House grounds to the public at 6:00 p.m., nor

does it authorize the arrest of individuals for their presence

on State House grounds after 6:00 p.m.

Even if we read Condition 8 as imposing a time, place,

and manner restriction, which would require individuals to

11
Occupy Columbia contends that Appellants’ argument
justifying the arrests under these statutes is not preserved for
this appeal. However, we need not decide the preservation issue
because, as explained, we do not find Appellants’ argument
compelling.

33
receive permission from the Division of General Services to

remain on State House grounds after 6:00 p.m., such a

restriction would be invalid. As the Supreme Court has made

clear, “a time, place, and manner regulation [must] contain

adequate standards to guide the official’s decision and render

it subject to effective judicial review.” Thomas v. Chicago

Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316, 323 (2002). The Court explained,

“[w]here the licensing official enjoys unduly broad discretion

in determining whether to grant or deny a permit, there is a

risk that he will favor or disfavor speech based on its

content.” Id. (citing Forsyth Cnty. v. Nationalist Movement,

505 U.S. 123, 131 (1992)). Here, we are unaware of any

standards to guide the Division of General Services in deciding

whether to grant or deny a permit to remain on State House

grounds after 6:00 p.m. Indeed, neither Condition 8 nor the

other Conditions of Use articulate any such standards.

Accordingly, Condition 8 was not a valid time, place, and manner

restriction that could have justified the arrests of the members

of Occupy Columbia.

2.

Having concluded that Occupy Columbia’s complaint

sufficiently alleges that arresting its members for their

presence and protests on State House grounds after 6:00 p.m.

constituted a violation of their First Amendment rights, we must

34
turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

“The second prong is ‘a test that focuses on the objective legal

reasonableness of an official’s acts.’” Henry v. Purnell, 652

F.3d 524, 534 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982)). At this stage, we must

assess whether the First Amendment right allegedly violated by

Appellants was a “clearly established” right “of which a

reasonable person would have known.” Mellen v. Bunting, 327

F.3d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks

omitted)).

When deciding whether a right is clearly established,

we ask “‘whether it would be clear to a reasonable [official]

that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.’”

Henry, 652 F.3d at 534 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194,

205 (2001)). “This is not to say that an official action is

protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in

question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say

that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be

apparent.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 239 (1987)

(internal citations omitted); see also Brockington, 637 F.3d at

508 (“Importantly, it is not required that the exact conduct has

been found unconstitutional in a previous case.”). Whether a

right is clearly established depends on the law of the relevant

jurisdiction. See Edwards, 178 F.3d at 250-51 (“In determining

35
whether a right was clearly established at the time of the

claimed violation, courts in this circuit [ordinarily] need not

look beyond the decisions of the Supreme Court, this court of

appeals, and the highest court of the state in which the case

arose.” (alteration in original and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

The question we must therefore ask is, on November 16,

2011, was it clearly established in Fourth Circuit and Supreme

Court precedent that, in the absence of a valid time, place, and

manner restriction, arresting members of Occupy Columbia for

their presence and protest on State House grounds after 6:00

p.m. was a violation of their First Amendment rights. In light

of the First Amendment case law described above (and again

briefly summarized below), we must answer this question in the

affirmative.

“A bedrock First Amendment principle is that citizens

have a right to voice dissent from government policies.” Tobey,

706 F.3d at 391 (citing Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218

(1966)). Indeed, “it is fundamental that the First Amendment

prohibits governmental infringement on the right of free

speech.” Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 837. Moreover, when that

speech takes place in a “quintessential public forum,” the

ability “of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply

circumscribed.” Perry, 460 U.S. at 45. Of course, “even in a

36
public forum the government may impose reasonable restrictions

on the time, place, or manner of protected speech.” Ward, 491

U.S. at 791.

It is not disputed that South Carolina and its state

officials could have restricted the time when the State House

grounds are open to the public with a valid time, place, and

manner restriction. However, as explained above, at the time of

Occupy Columbia’s arrest, no such restrictions existed. In

light of the case law from this circuit and from the Supreme

Court, it was clearly established on November 16, 2011, that

arresting Occupy Columbia for protesting on State House grounds

after 6:00 p.m. was a First Amendment violation. Accordingly,

at this stage, Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity

for damages arising out of Occupy Columbia’s arrest on November

16, 2011.

V.

In sum, we hold that the Occupy Columbia protesters

have stated a viable claim that Appellants violated their First

Amendment rights to assemble and protest peacefully on the

grounds of the South Carolina State House in the absence of a

valid time, place, or manner regulation. Condition 8 did not

constitute a valid regulation because on its face it imposed no

limit on when the State House grounds were open to the public

and, even if it had restricted the time during which protesters

37
could assemble, it did not contain any standards to guide the

official’s decision regarding when to grant special permission

to continue such activities beyond closing time. Furthermore,

at this point in the proceedings, we cannot say as a matter of

law that the state statutes upon which Appellants rely are valid

applicable time, place, and manner restrictions. For purposes

of this motion, we must accept as true Occupy Columbia’s

assertion that its members gathered in a peaceful and lawful

manner and conclude that the protesters were not violating any

law. Based on the complaint, there were no existing time,

place, and manner restrictions on the protesters’ First

Amendment activities on the State House grounds. Therefore,

Appellants violated these rights by removing the protesters from

the grounds.

We also hold that the right of the protesters to

assemble and speak out against the government on the State House

grounds in the absence of valid time, place, and manner

restrictions has been clearly established since Edwards v. South

Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235 (1963).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of

qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

AFFIRMED

38