## Facts

- Robert A. Heimbaugh regularly played softball on baseball fields in Golden Gate Park.
- San Francisco Park Code § 3.02 limited certain fields to hardball/baseball play and prohibited softball on those fields.
- While Heimbaugh played softball in a restricted area, police officers issued a citation under the Park Code; he refused to sign and was arrested.
- Heimbaugh asserted his softball playing was expressive conduct conveying a message about “democracy in recreation” versus “elitism.”
- He sued the City and County of San Francisco, various city officials and officers, and other defendants, seeking damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and for common-law torts.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment and requested attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

## Issues

1. Whether playing softball on a particular park field constituted expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
2. If the conduct were expressive, whether the Park Code’s field-use restriction was a permissible time, place, and manner regulation.
3. Whether differentiating between baseball and softball field use violated the Equal Protection Clause.
4. Whether the citation and arrest, as pleaded, established a Fourth Amendment violation.
5. Whether § 1983 provided a remedy for alleged common-law torts absent an independent constitutional violation.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for defendants on all federal claims.
- The court held the complaint alleged no facts showing softball play was communicative or symbolic conduct within the First Amendment’s scope.
- The court held that, even assuming expressive content, the Park Code functioned as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction allocating use of park facilities.
- The court applied rational-basis review and upheld the baseball/softball distinction as rationally related to legitimate governmental interests in managing park resources.
- The court found the complaint failed to allege facts supporting an unlawful search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
- The court held § 1983 did not federalize alleged tort injuries; any tort remedies lay, if at all, under state law.
- The court addressed defendants’ Rule 11 fee request in connection with the motion but did not alter the merits disposition.

## Legal Principles

- Conduct is protected as symbolic speech only when facts show a communicative intent and a likelihood that observers would understand the intended message.
- Content-neutral rules governing use of public facilities may be upheld as reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
- Classifications not involving suspect classes or fundamental rights are reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny and are valid if rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
- A Fourth Amendment claim requires facts showing an unreasonable search or seizure; conclusory assertions are insufficient.
- Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights, not for state-law torts absent a distinct constitutional deprivation.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a pro se § 1983 challenge to park field-use restrictions and an arrest arising from a citation, holding that recreational softball play was not protected expressive conduct on the pleaded facts, the regulation was a permissible means of managing park facilities, the baseball/softball classification satisfied rational-basis review, and § 1983 could not be used to recover for alleged torts without a separate constitutional violation.


Heimbaugh v. City & County of San Francisco, 591 F. Supp. 1573 (N.D. Cal. 1984)