UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CAROL BARE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MARTINSVILLE, INDIANA
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-2683

Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Introduction
1.

The Martinsville Police Department (Martinsville PD) maintains a Facebook page

where it posts announcements, crime reports and investigation updates, and other
information related to police activity in the City of Martinsville. The Facebook page is
viewable by the public, and anyone with a Facebook account can post comments in
response to the Citys postings. Carol Bare is a former resident of Martinsville who
maintains strong ties to the community. Following a series of negative interactions with
the Martinsville PD, Ms. Bare posted a comment criticizing the police for harassing
people and not doing their jobs. The Martinsville PD promptly removed Ms. Bares
comment and she was blocked from posting further comments. Ms. Bares comment was
removed because she was critical of the police department, and Ms. Bare remains
blocked today.

The Martinsville PDs censorship of Ms. Bares comments on its

Facebook page on the basis of her viewpoint is a violation of the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution and it must be enjoined.

Jurisdiction, Venue, and Cause of Action

2.

This Court has jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.

3.

Declaratory relief is authorized by Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
28 U.S.C. 2201, 2202.

4.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.

5.

Plaintiff brings her cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to redress the
deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United
States.

Parties
6.

Carol Bare is an adult resident of Sullivan, Indiana.

7.

The City of Martinsville is a municipality located in Morgan County, Indiana, which,

among other things, is responsible for the operation of the Martinsville Police
Department.

Factual Allegations
8.

The Martinsville Police Department (Martinsville PD) maintains a Facebook page,

where, among other things, it posts public service announcements, information
concerning police investigations, arrests, and other activities, and information concerning
road closures.

9.

The Martinsville PDs Facebook page can be viewed by the public and anyone with a
Facebook account can post a comment in response to Martinsville PDs posts, unless
Martinsville PD blocks a particular Facebook account from posting comments.

10.

A Facebook user can respond to a Martinsville PD post by writing a comment or posting

one of six graphic icons provided by Facebook representing a reaction by the user (e.g., a

thumbs-up icon indicating that the user likes the post). Both types of responses are
viewable by the general public.
11.

Facebook users can also post comments in response to other user comments concerning a
Martinsville PD post.

12.

Martinsville PD posts new items most days, and sometimes multiple times a day.

13.

Carol Bare is a former resident of Martinsville, who currently resides in Sullivan,

Indiana. She was a resident in Martinsville until August 2016.

14.

From May 2014 to August 2015, following a dispute with a neighbor whose grandmother
worked for the Martinsville PD, Ms. Bare and her family experienced what she perceived
to be harassment by the Martinsville PD.

15.

The harassment became so bad that Ms. Bare moved out of Martinsville.

16.

Ms. Bare regularly visits the Martinsville PDs Facebook page for information about
police activity and announcements from the City. Approximately one year ago, Ms. Bare
saw a comment by another Facebook user who was complaining about Martinsville PD
harassing residents. Ms. Bare, frustrated with her experience with the Martinsville PD,
posted a public response in support of that user stating that the police do not do anything
except harass old ladies who have done nothing wrong.

17.

The Martinsville PD immediately took down Ms. Bares post and blocked her from
posting future comments.

18.

At the time, Ms. Bare observed many other comments from Facebook users that
commended the performance of the Martinsville PD that were not removed.

19.

The Martinsville PD did not notify Ms. Bare of the reasons for removing her comment or
blocking her from posting future comments.

20.

Ms. Bare knows she has been blocked because the dialogue box that appears under the
Martinsville PDs postings that allows a Facebook user to enter text no longer appears.
Ms. Bare is also unable to like a posting or post an icon response.

21.

Ms. Bare also knows she has been blocked because when she attempts to submit a review
of the Martinsville PD Facebook page, which consists of a one to five star rating and a
comment, a dialogue box from Facebook appears stating, Sorry, Something Went
Wrong You are blocked, and the rating and comment are not posted.

22.

As of yesterday when Ms. Bare last visited the Martinsville PD Facebook page, Ms. Bare
remains blocked from posting comments.

23.

Because she lived in Martinsville for eight years, Ms. Bare and her daughter maintain
strong connections to the Martinsville community. Ms. Bare maintains an apartment in
Martinsville and visits approximately once a week.

24.

Ms. Bare still visits the Martinsville PD Facebook page because it contains information
and announcements that are useful to her. Because she has property in Martinsville,
regularly stays there, and has close friends who live in Martinsville, she is interested in
what is happening in the City and wants to remain an active member of the community.

25.

Ms. Bare wishes to continue to post comments on the Martinsville PD Facebook page but
cannot because Martinsville PD has blocked her from its Facebook page.

26.

Ms. Bare also wishes to continue to post comments without being censored because of
her viewpoint.

27.

At all times Martinsville PD acted under color of state law.

28.

The plaintiff is being caused irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at
law.

Legal Claim
29.

The defendants removal of the plaintiffs comments on the Martinsville PD Facebook

page and blocking of plaintiffs ability to make future comments violates the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Request for Relief

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests that this Court
1.

Accept jurisdiction of this case and set it for hearing at the earliest opportunity.

2.

Declare that the actions of the defendant violate the First Amendment for the reasons
noted above.

3.

Enter a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, enjoining defendant from

blocking the plaintiff from posting comments on the Martinsville PDs Facebook page,
and from removing plaintiffs comments on the basis of their viewpoint.

4.

Award plaintiff her attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

5.

Award all other proper relief.

/s/ Jan P. Mensz_________
Jan P. Mensz
ACLU of Indiana
1031 E. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317.635.4059, x107
<jmensz@aclu-in.org>
/s/ Kenneth J. Falk______
Kenneth J. Falk
ACLU of Indiana
1031 E. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317.635.4059, x104
<kfalk@aclu-in.org>
Attorneys for plaintiff