IN THE LTNITEDTATESDISTRICTCOURTNORTHERN ISTRICTOFTEXASDALLASDIVISION

DARRELRLTNDUSPlaintiffVS.CITYOFDALLAS,ETAL.Defendants.

I$$NO.3-06-CV-1823-BD$$$$

MEMORANDUMOPINIONAND ORDERIn this section1983civilrights action riedto thecourtonstipulatedacts and writtenbriefs,twolegalssuesarepresentedordetermination:(1)whether heLiterature DistributionRestrictionpromulgated by the StateFairofTexas,nc.("SFOT"), whichprohibitsplaintifffromdistributingreligiousmaterials on thegroundsof the StateFair,violates theFirst andFourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution;and(2)whether SFOT,by virtueof itsrelationshipwith theCityofDallas("theCify"),is a"stateactor" orpurposesf section1983iability. Concludinghat hereisno state action,the courtentersudgmentfor the defendants.I.SFOTisaprivate,non-profit corporationhat operates heannualStateFair ofTexas.(Am.Stip.Facts atl-2,flfll-3).The StateFair, which runsfor aperiodnot toexceed30 daysinSeptemberndOctober,s held onpublicfairgrounds wnedbytheCityofDallas.(Id.at2,l\3-4).SFOTleaseshefairgrounds rom the City andregulates ll expressivectivities on thepremisesduringhe StateFair.(Id.at3,l19 &12-13,l'lT5-78).

Case 3:06-cv-01823-BD Document 115 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 1 of 11

Apolicy promulgatedy SFOTgenerally rohibitshe distributionofadvertising,lyers,orother written materialsonthe fairgrounds.(ld.al13,lJfl77,81).Instead, ndividualsandorganizations ishing o engagensuchactivitiesare equired o rentexhibit spacerom SFOTandconfine hoseactivities o theirallottedspace.Id.at 13,u82).Prospective xhibitors ndsponsorsmust submit an applicationo SFOT,which evaluatesheapplicationbasedonvariousactors,includinghe uniqueness f theexhibit, heypeofproduct,he ypeof service,ducationalalue,andappropriatenessor afamily audience.Id.at 14,lfl86-87). Onceheapplications approvedby SFOT,heexhibitormustsignawrittencontractgreeingocomplywith certainExhibitorRulesandRegulations.Id.at 14,l90).ExhibitorRule9provideshathe"[d]istribution,ampling,promotingofproductsoutsideofthe contractedooth/spaceasdefinedbySFOT)s strictlyprohibited."Id.at 14,fl 9l).SFOToffersseveralustificationsorRule9 andtsgeneralolicyprohibiting he distributionofwrittenmaterialsn thefairgrounds,whichthepartiescollectivelyrefero ashe"LiteratureDistributionRestriction,"ncluding:

.the needo maintainhe orderlymovementofthe crowdgiventhe argenumberof exhibitorsandpersonsattendinghe StateFair;.SFOT'sinterestinprotectingfairgoersfrom deceptiveandmisleadingspeech;.SFOT'snterest nprotecting fairgoersfromharassmentandundueannoyance;and.protectingSFOT'sfinancial interestsand therights ofexhibitors whopayfor the abilitytodistributewrittenmaterials.(Id.at16-17,lI I 1). Over theyears,SFOThaseasedexhibitspaceomany differentreligiousorganizations,whichare thenpermittedto distributeliterature tofairgoers fromtheir assignedbooths.Id.at l5-16,1T'1101-104).

Case 3:06-cv-01823-BD Document 115 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 2 of 11

In 2006, more than sevenmillionvisitors attended he StateFairofTexas.(Id.at 41,n2fi).Onesuch visitor wasplaintiff,Darrel Rundus, an EvangelicalChristian who is committed tospreading heGospelof JesusChrist andeachingothers o do thesame.(Id.atI8-19,nnl2l-122).Whenplaintiffattemptedoenter theState Fairwithprintedreligiousmaterials,or Bibletracts,SFOTprohibitedhimfrom doing sopursuantotheLiteratureDistributionRestriction.(Id.at26,tT150). SFOTdid notpreventplaintifffrom distributingreligiousiteratureor engagingwillinglistenersoutsidethefairgrounds.(Id,at22,1l138). Norwasplaintiffprohibited from initiatingpurelyverbalconversationswithpatronson thegroundsof the StateFair.(Id.at13,1179).ndeed,SFOTinformedplaintiffthathemaytalk abouthis faithwith otherson thefairgrounds, solongashe didnot distributeliterature(Id.at22,1t134).Plaintiffacknowledgeshathe coulddistributeBibletractsfrom a boothattheStateFairif hepaida feeand wasgivenanexhibitorcontract.(Id.at22,tTl3S).However,plaintiffbelieveshatusing a booths nota viableor an effectivemethodofreachinghis audience.Id.at22-23,lT139).OnOctober5,2006,plaintiffsuedSFOTand heCity infederaldistrictcourtfor violatinghisFirst Amendmentright topracticehisreligionby distributingBibletractsat andaroundheStateFair ofTexas.Aspartof his complaint,plaintiff soughtapreliminary injunction,whichwasdenied.Rundusv. Cityof Dallas,et al.,No.3-06-CV-1823-BN.D.Tex.Oct. 11,2006).After conductingdiscovery,hepartieswere ableto stipulateotherelevantfacts,eavingonlyissuesoflawforthecourtto decide.Thosessueshavebeenullybriefedandarguedby theparties,andhis cases ripeforfinal adjudication.II.Thegravamenofplaintiffs complaintisthattheLiteratureDistribution RestrictionpromulgatedbySFOTviolateshis FirstAmendmentightto expressisreligiousbeliefs hrough