A federal magistrate judge recommended Monday that Lisa Sweeney-Miran’s lawsuit against the City of Boulder should go forward, after the city filed a motion to dismiss the suit in March 2024.
Both parties have 14 days to file objections, and then the magistrate’s recommendation will go to a district court judge for a final decision.
Sweeney-Miran alleged in her January 2024 suit that the city violated her First Amendment rights and right to due process when city council voted 5-2 to remove her from the city’s Police Oversight Panel (POP) in May 2023. Sweeney-Miran was removed over allegations that she was biased against police, which stemmed from tweets criticizing policing as well as her involvement in a lawsuit challenging the city’s camping ban that allows police to ticket people for sleeping outside.
Sweeney-Miran also alleged in her suit that the city coerced her to withdraw from the lawsuit ahead of her 2022 appointment to the POP.
Members of the volunteer cop watchdog group receive a $200 per month stipend, which the city argued in its motion to dismiss effectively made her a public employee and therefore limited free speech rights, according to the recommendation. The city also contended that she withdrew from the camping ban lawsuit voluntarily.
The magistrate, Susan Prose, disagreed with the city that Sweeney-Miran’s claims over retaliation for her tweets and participation in the camping ban suit should be dismissed, saying it was premature to decide whether Sweeney-Miran should be treated as a public employee with regards to free speech. Prose also recommended against dismissing the claim that Sweeney-Miran was denied due process.
However, the claim that the city unconstitutionally coerced Sweeney-Miran into withdrawing from the camping ban lawsuit should be dismissed, the magistrate said in the filing.
The city also filed a motion Feb. 14 to withdraw its arguments to dismiss the claim of First Amendment retaliation.
"Overall, I think we're happy with the ruling on the motion to dismiss because it preserved most of our claim," Ashlyn Hare, one of the attorneys representing Sweeney-Miran said. "We are currently debating whether we want to file an objection on that one claim where the motion to dismiss was granted, which is our coercion claim ... We'll continue conferring with our client to decide."
A city spokesperson said the city would not discuss litigation strategy publicly. “We will let any filings we make in this ongoing case speak for themselves,” they wrote in an email.
Editor's note: This story was updated Feb. 18 at 6:11 p.m. to include comment from Sweeney-Miran's representation.