FAYETTEVILLE -- A preacher who sued two Washington County Quorum Court members claiming he was improperly removed from meetings wants to dismiss his current lawsuit so he can be part of a future class action lawsuit after the November elections.
Clint Schnekloth sued justices of the peace Patrick Deakins and Sam Duncan in July 2021 claiming he was removed from county government meetings June 28, 2021, and July 15, 2021, and was deprived of his "guaranteed rights of speech and participation in democratic government."
Schnekloth, lead pastor at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Fayetteville, has been vocal about issues ranging from how the county spends, or does not spend, federal relief money; the proposed jail expansion; and a pro-life resolution the county passed.
According to the lawsuit, Duncan ordered a Washington County Sheriff's Office deputy to remove Schnekloth from the June 28 meeting "for no apparent reason and without any good cause."
Deakins ordered a deputy to remove Schnekloth from the meeting room before the July 15 meeting started, according to the lawsuit.
Schnekloth claims the county has no policy governing the removal of people from a public meeting.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks earlier dismissed parts of the lawsuit.
Schnekloth moved a few weeks ago to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit, saying he no longer believes the lawsuit is worth the time and expense of trying it. Schnekloth wants the judge to dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled later.
In response, Deakins and Duncan filed a motion opposing voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit. They argue they're entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment. The two also argued Schnekloth failed to respond to their earlier motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it couldn't be refiled.
Brooks entered an order directing Schnekloth to respond to the motion by Deakins and Duncan opposing voluntary dismissal. In addition to addressing the objections to voluntary dismissal, Brooks said Schnekloth's reply should also say why he failed to respond to the officials' earlier motion for summary judgment.
In a response, Schnekloth's attorney, Matthew Bender, said his client has talked with other people who had been removed from meetings by Deakins and Duncan and preserving his claim for a potential future class action lawsuit would be a more productive path to protect free speech at local government meetings and more efficient than litigating his own claim independently. By allowing dismissal without prejudice, Schnekloth could pursue that avenue.
"There is also an additional reason for the court to entertain Mr. Schnekloth's motion to dismiss, which is that the defendants in this case are engaged in political campaigns, which seem to be influencing the litigation and behavior of the parties in this case," according to the response. "Permitting Mr. Schnekloth to dismiss his claims without prejudice would allow Mr. Schnekloth to, with new counsel, potentially reopen his case later when litigation would not blur with parties' political campaigns. Too much of this case seems to be being litigated on social media, and the case's implications for the defendants' political campaigns seems to be overshadowing the substantive issues."
In a related issue, Magistrate Judge Christy Comstock denied a motion by Deakins and Duncan to be excused from an upcoming settlement conference on the suit.
Prejudice
The phrase “without prejudice” means a claim, lawsuit or proceeding has been brought to a temporary end but no legal rights or privileges have been determined, waived or lost by the result. This means the dismissal is no bar to bringing a new lawsuit in the future. By contrast, “with prejudice” means a party’s legal rights have been determined and lost.
Source: uslegal.com