Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Defendants.
Defendants City of Myrtle Beach (“City”) and the City of Myrtle Beach Police
In a second attempt to prevent the Bikefest Task Force’s public safety traffic plan from
operating during Memorial Day Weekend, Plaintiffs have moved for the extraordinary and
Plaintiffs’ first attempt in an order dated May 23, 2018. (Quattlebaum Order, ECF 50). Judge
Quattlebaum issued a thorough and cogent order stating the reasons why a preliminary injunction
was not an appropriate remedy for Plaintiffs in the above captioned lawsuit. For the reasons
stated in Judge Quattlebaum’s Order, together with the additional reasons stated hereinbelow,
Plaintiffs’ second Motion seeks to limit the scope of its request for a preliminary
injunction to Defendants’ participation in the implementation of the Bikefest Task Force’s one
way 23.1 mile traffic control plan (“traffic loop”). The Court is asked to note that only 6.1 miles
of the multijurisdictional traffic loop (35%) are controlled by Defendants. (Ex. 1 Prock Aff., ¶ 7).
1
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 2 of 25
The remaining 17 miles (65%) are located on State roads controlled by the South Carolina
stakeholders operating the traffic loop should be part of the Court’s adjudication of the Plaintiffs’
claims. However, Plaintiffs have chosen to ignore the roles played by the other government
entities in creating and implementing the traffic loop, and Plaintiffs have not addressed how their
motion will affect those entities’ or their residents. The SCDOT is not a party to the lawsuit and
would not be affected by an order issued on Plaintiffs’ motion by this Court. Further, the other
government entities that are affected by the traffic loop, such as Horry County, are not parties to
the lawsuit.
In their second Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs do not present any
evidence or arguments that are substantially different from those presented to Judge Quattlebaum
in their first unsuccessful attempt to obtain a preliminary injunction. The 23.1 mile traffic loop
was main the focus of Plaintiffs’ first motion for a preliminary injunction. [ECF 6]
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2003, the NAACP filed a lawsuit similar to the above captioned lawsuit against
Defendants seeking to enjoin one-way traffic on Ocean Boulevard. (Ex 2 2003 Amended
Complaint). The premise of the first lawsuit was that Memorial Day Weekend and Harley Week
were substantially the same except for the races of the majority of the visitors. Id. Plaintiffs
claimed the traffic patterns implemented should be the same. Id. The Honorable Terry L. Wooten
made preliminary findings that because the two different weeks appeared to have the same
characteristics the traffic safety plans employed by the Defendants should be the same. (Ex 3
Wooten Order). Judge Wooten’s order was summarily stayed by the Fourth Circuit Court of
2
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 3 of 25
The facts existing when Plaintiffs first lawsuit was filed have changed substantially. [Ex
6, Ellenburg Dec.] At the time of the first lawsuit, two large similar motorcycle rallies were held
in the City of Myrtle Beach. The first rally was called “Harley Week” which occurred during the
middle of May. The majority of its attendees were white. The second rally was called Memorial
Day Bikefest or Black Bike Week (“MDW”) and occurred during Memorial Day Weekend. The
majority of its attendees were African-American. Those facts changed in 2009 when the City
enacted several ordinances designed to make motorcycle riding in the City safer. The ordinances
did not offend MDW attendees as much as the Harley Week attendees who filed three separate
lawsuits to overturn the ordinances. [Ex 6 Aff. Thomas E. Ellenburg, City Attorney]. During this
same time period, no lawsuits by the NAACP were filed on behalf of MDW attendees. Id.
One of the City’s ordinances required all bikers wear motorcycle helmets while riding in
the City. The helmet ordinance, which was later declared unlawful on the grounds of state law
preemption in Aakjer v. City of Myrtle Beach, 388 S.C. 129, 694 S.E.2d 213 (2010), offended the
motorcyclists participating in Harley Week. Those motorcyclists decided that if the City did not
want them to come to Myrtle Beach, they would boycott the City. The Harley Week
motorcyclists adopted the slogans “Not a dime in ‘09” and “Do it again in 2010.” Id. The Harley
Week attendees moved their activities to the south and north – outside the city limits of the City
of Myrtle Beach. Id. While many Harley Week attendees still stay in hotels located inside the
City, all of their main activities occur outside the City. Id. As a result, the similarities between
Memorial Day Weekend draws one of the largest crowds of the year to the City. The
reason is Memorial Day Weekend is the first week of the summer, and it draws approximately
3
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 4 of 25
350,000 MDW attendees to Myrtle Beach on Memorial Day Weekend on top of the normal
influx of summer visitors. (Ex. 7 Lazarus Depo., 166:19-23 (Horry County Council Chairman
2013-2018) (“I mean, we already have three to 500,000 people here on a given week day. When
you add that on top of another two or 300,000 people for an event, that stresses our
infrastructure.”)).
One feature of Memorial Day Weekend that makes it unique from other busy summer
weekends is that a large segment of the MDW attendees congregate and cruise along a 6 mile
stretch of Ocean Boulevard between 29th Avenue North and Harrelson Boulevard. (Ex 8 Report
of Traffic Engineer Mark Teague & Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, ECF 84, ¶ 38 (“It is
common for Black Bike Week attendees to drive or ‘cruise’ through the City of Myrtle Beach
During past Memorial Day Weekends, MDW attendees created massive traffic gridlock
throughout the City including Kings Highway and side streets between Kings Highway and
Ocean Boulevard. (Ex 9 2005 MDW Helicopter Video; Ex 10 2005 MDW Street Video, Ex 11
Jeff Thomas Depo., 116:21-117:4 (City Traffic Engineer Coordinator 1985-2016)] (“Once the
bike event shifted from Atlantic Beach down to Myrtle Beach over that one specific weekend,
we could have 40 or 50 blocks of congestion. And it goes from one road, then it goes onto the
side streets and there’s just – it just keeps filling up. It’s like you take a pipe and you start putting
water, everything starts to fill up and eventually there’s nowhere – it’s not moving at all.”)).[Ex
In response to the gridlock and other public safety problems during Memorial Day
Weekend, Defendants began considering and implementing various traffic control safety plans.
Defendants’ traffic safety control plans during Memorial Day Weekend were expensive and
4
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 5 of 25
required a tremendous allocation of manpower and resources to properly implement. [Ex 5 Leath
Depo. 210:11-12]. Those measures included creating an emergency vehicle lane, restricting
traffic to one-way on Ocean Boulevard and placing extra police officers at various intersections
In 2010 traffic safety problems showed a decline during MDW. In 2011, Defendants tried
relaxing traffic restrictions on Ocean Boulevard to save City resources and expenses. (Ex 5 Leath
Depo., 143:16-19 & 210:11-12). One-way traffic restrictions and emergency lane restrictions on
Ocean Boulevard were lifted. The unrestricted traffic plan during MDW was allowed to exist for
During those four years, public safety conditions on Ocean Boulevard and surrounding
areas deteriorated with an increase in the numbers of people congregating on Ocean Boulevard,
an increase in criminal activities, and an increase in traffic gridlock throughout the City. [Ex 12
Prock Depo., 92:2-22]. In 2013, Police Chief Warren Gall approached Mr. Leath and requested
that he reinstitute a previous traffic safety plan that established an emergency vehicle lane and
permitted only one-way traffic on Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Leath refused to reinstate the Memorial
One of the reasons Mr. Leath resisted Chief Gall’s request was that Ocean Boulevard had
changed its features. Pedestrian safety islands had been installed in the center of Ocean
Boulevard to protect pedestrians crossing from hotel parking areas to the oceanfront hotel. The
installation of the pedestrian safety islands cut down on the space allowed for vehicles on Ocean
Boulevard. The pedestrian safety islands affected the flow of traffic. [Ex 5 Leath Depo. at 90-
94].
In 2014, public safety conditions deteriorated to the point that Mr. Leath recognized that
5
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 6 of 25
something had to be done to improve public safety during Memorial Day weekend. [Ex 5 Leath
Depo. at 146; Ex 13 Block Party Video; Ex 14; Shooting Video 2014; ; Ex 15 Balcony Video].
Nine separate shooting incidents involving Memorial Day Weekend visitors occurred in the City.
Three of those shootings were homicides. [Ex 16 USA Today Article]. The governor of South
Carolina, Niki Haley, got involved and declared that something had to be done to stop the
violence and make Memorial Day weekend safer. [Ex 17 Sun News Article].
Defendants called together a summit of all government entities who were affected by Memorial
Day Weekend events together with other government entities outside of South Carolina who had
extraordinary events similar to Memorial Day Weekend. [Ex 18 Gall Depo., 161:18-163:3]. The
purpose of the summit was to address public safety in Myrtle Beach and surrounding areas
during Memorial Day Weekend and develop a best practices for law enforcement. [Ex 18 Gall
Depo., 159:2-12 & 229:10-230:17; Ex 19 2014 Summit Agenda]. To date, the City continues to
host a yearly summit on managing and policing large events. [Ex 6 Ellenburg Declaration]
Around the same time a group mayors and managers of local governments around the
Grand Strand called the Coastal Alliance formed a Bikefest Task Force to address the same
issue. [ Ex 20 Coastal Alliance Minutes & Ex 21 Webster Aff.]. The Bikefest Task Force
assumed the role of coordinating and managing the present traffic safety plans that Plaintiffs seek
to enjoin. (Ex 22 Webster Depo. 184:14-24). The Bikefest Task Force is led by Horry County’s
Director of Emergency Operations, Randy Webster. Other members of the Bikefest Task Force
include representatives from the City of North Myrtle Beach, City of Myrtle Beach, City of
Atlantic Beach, Town of Briarcliffe Acres, Town of Surfside Beach, Horry County, South
Carolina Law Enforcement Division, South Carolina Department of Public Safety, South
6
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 7 of 25
Association, City of Conway, City of Loris and Town of Aynor. [Ex 23 2015 Bikefest Task
The NAACP was invited to participate in the Bikefest Task Force planning process. [Ex
22 Webster Depo., 183:1-10]. In May of 2016, one of the Plaintiffs’ experts, Former Police Chief
Willie Williams, submitted a traffic safety plan. [Ex 24 NAACP Traffic Plan]. His plan
contained a traffic loop that was rejected by the Bikefest Task Force because it was believed,
among other things, to prevent adequate access to the local hospital. (Ex 25, Pederson E-mail).
The Bikefest Task Force’s traffic loop has two main purposes. [Ex 5 Leath Depo. Pp
131- 133] The first purpose is to keep traffic moving along Ocean Boulevard. The second
purpose to is keep traffic on Ocean Boulevard from being dumped back into the City or dumped
into residential areas located outside of the City. The Bikefest Task Force traffic loop was first
implemented Memorial Day Weekend 2015. [Ex 6 Ellenburg Dec.] The traffic loop plan calls
for implementation of the loop from 10 pm to 2pm on Friday, Saturday and Sunday of Memorial
Day Weekend. Those hours of operation were chosen because that is when the volume of motor
traffic is the heaviest. The maximum time planned for the traffic loop to be operational during
Memorial Day weekend is 12 hours. [Ex 26 Capt. Crosby Video Loop Explanation]
From a public safety perspective, the Bikefest Task Force safety plans including the
traffic loop have been successful. [Ex 27 Alpert & McLean Report & Ex 23 BTF After Action
Report] Emergency and police vehicle response times are down. Residents are able to move
more easily around the City. [Ex 28 Violet Lucas Affidavit & Ex 29 Fannie Brown Affidavit]
7
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 8 of 25
Violent crimes have gone down and no one has been murdered since 2015. [Ex 27] In addition,
the plan allows the Defendants the flexibility to not implement the traffic loop or to end the
traffic loop earlier than 2 pm, if the existing traffic conditions do not present public safety
For three years the Bikefest Task Force plans were implemented without legal opposition
from Plaintiffs. In 2018, Plaintiffs filed suit and sought a temporary injunction. As indicated
above, Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction was denied by Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum.
A court may issue a preliminary injunction upon notice to the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ.P.
65(a). It is well settled law that “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).
A movant seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) that he is likely to succeed on the
merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that
the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20.
See also Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 320 (4th Cir. 2013). Critically, each of the four elements
must be satisfied. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Moreover, a plaintiff must make a “clear showing” both
that he is likely to succeed on the merits at trial and that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm
absent relief. Id.; The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2009),
vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089 (2010). [ECF 50 Order of Judge Quattlebaum]
The City contends the injunction Plaintiffs seek is a mandatory preliminary injunction
and not a prohibitory injunction because Plaintiffs seek to have the Court intervene and assume
control of existing traffic control strategies that have been in existence for over four years.
Plaintiffs seek to have the court change the status quo by changing the existing traffic control
8
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 9 of 25
plans that have been finalized for 2019 and which existed in similar iterations for the past four
years. When a preliminary injunction is mandatory rather than prohibitory in nature, a court’s
application of the preliminary injunction standard set forth in Winter is “even more searching.”
Pashby, 709 F.3d at “[A] preliminary injunction’s tendency to preserve the status quo determines
maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm while a lawsuit is pending, while a
mandatory preliminary injunction does not preserve the status quo. Id. at 319-20. The Fourth
Circuit has defined the status quo as the “last uncontested status between the parties which
Plaintiffs’ request to enjoin the implementation of the traffic loop during Memorial Day
weekend. Implementation of the loop represents the status quo as it has existed for the past four
years. Logistical planning is in place and State and local governments have been assigned their
respective duties. The public has been notified about what to expect during Memorial Day
The City further contends that the stricter burden of proof for a mandatory preliminary
injunction should be applied to Plaintiffs’ claims of damages. [ECF 76-1] The City contends that
the Plaintiffs’ alleged damages do not meet the extreme or serious damage standards required for
for more than three tears before seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of
the Bikefest Task Force’s traffic loop safety plan parties which preceded the controversy.”
Pashby 709 F 3d. at 320 (internal citations omitted). However, Judge Quattlebaum did not reach
the issue of which burden of proof applied. He did find that even applying the Winter test for
9
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 10 of 25
prohibitory injunctions, Plaintiffs failed to make the showing required for a prohibitory
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs must first make a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of
the case. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the entire
MDW safety plan violates their rights under the United States Constitution. In the present motion
Plaintiffs’ claim focuses only on the traffic loop and equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
The Plaintiffs claim that the traffic loop instituted during Memorial Day Weekend (MDW)
violates the rights of MDW participants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State
shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1. The Equal Protection Clause limits all state action and prohibits a state from
denying a person equal protection through enactment, administration, or enforcement of its laws
and regulations. Sylvia Development Corp. v. Calvert County, Md., 48 F.3d 810, 818 (4th Cir.
1995). However, the Equal Protection Clause does not remove all power of classification from
the States. Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001). Rather, it “keeps
governmental decisionmakers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant respects
alike[.]” Id. (quoting Nordinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992)) (internal citations omitted).
Therefore, to succeed on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must clearly demonstrate (1) that
she has been treated differently from others who are similarly situated and (2) that the unequal
10
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 11 of 25
treatment resulted from intentional or purposeful discrimination. Id. If the Plaintiff makes the
requisite showing, the court then proceeds to determine whether the disparity in treatment is
Plaintiffs claim that except for the race of a majority of the MDW visitors and the
implementation of the traffic loop, MDW is the same as other busy weekends in Myrtle Beach.
Plaintiffs claim Defendants use a traffic loop pattern to discourage African Americans from
visiting the City during MDW. They claim the use of the traffic loop makes traveling along
Ocean Boulevard more frustrating and unpleasant for African Americans. Plaintiffs do not claim
that enforcement of the traffic loop within the weekend itself is applied in a discriminatory
manner against African Americans. The traffic loop is applied equally to everyone. Instead
Plaintiffs claim any use of the traffic loop during Memorial Day weekend is a discriminatory act
because of the racial status of a majority of the MDW visitors in the City at that time.
Defendants contend that Memorial Day weekend is a unique weekend for the City. [Ex
30, Robert Stewart, Police Expert Report] MDW is considered to be the start of the summer
tourist season. In addition, a motorcycle rally held in Atlantic Beach Memorial Day weekend
attracts an additional 250,000 to 350,000 young African American who spill over into the City
because Atlantic Beach is small community that cannot accommodate all of the visitors attracted
to its motorcycle rally. [Ex. 7 Lazarus Depo., 166:19-23 ] A large segment of the African
American visitors who spill over into the City cruise and gather on Ocean Boulevard during the
weekend causing traffic congestion and traffic gridlock throughout the City. In past years
serious violence and public safety issues have occurred during Memorial Day weekend that
11
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 12 of 25
Defendants have retained a police practices expert who supports their contention that
Memorial Day weekend is unique. Police Chief Robert Stewart concluded from his
investigation: “ This (Memorial Day Weekend) is a unique event and demographic activity and
attendance measures used to compare one against another do not transfer in a way that produces
Defendants have retained a traffic engineer who supports the same contention that
Memorial Day weekend is unique, Mark Teague, PE, CPM, found in his investigation:
The Bike Fest has established itself as a major motorcycle event that is
concentrated in a small area (approximately 0.5 square miles). Based on prior
year's observations this intense population and presence of event participants has
caused extreme congestion of both vehicles and pedestrians which has impeded
emergency vehicles, created undue delay for non-event users, and created a risk
for the health and safety of all event stakeholders. [Ex 8 Mark Teague Report]
Defendants have retained criminology experts who have observed the weekend and analyzed the
statistics for past MDW years in the City. Those experts support Defendants position. Geoff
Alpert, Ph.D.. and Kyle McLean, PhD., found from their investigation:
“Two very important conclusions are drawn from the data analyses. First, from
2011 to 2018, MDW has had an outsized impact on public safety resources
compared to other busy weekends in Myrtle Beach. Whether measured through
calls for service, motor vehicle collisions, motor vehicle collisions with injury,
serious violent crime, serious property crime, or Fire/Rescue responses, MDW
had a greater number of public safety activities than the comparison weekends.
Second, trend lines for each of these categories of activities suggest that the public
safety burden on MDW has been reduced in recent years. Specifically, since the
formation of the Bike Week Task Force, MDW has seen decreases in calls for
service, motor vehicle collisions, motor vehicle collisions with injury, serious
violent crime, and serious property crime.” [Exhibit 27 Alpert & McLean Report]
Plaintiffs’ initially focused on a comparison for the traffic safety plans implemented
during Bike fest and Harley Week. Plaintiffs appear to have abandoned that comparison in their
12
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 13 of 25
memorandum in support of their motion. In his preliminary order in 2005, Judge Wooten’s focus
was also limited to a comparison of Bikefest and Harley Week traffic safety plans and found that
the traffic plans for both times should be the same. That comparison of MDW to Harley Week is
no longer valid. While some Harley Week visitors may stay in City hotels, all of their bike
activities occur outside the City. Harley Week visitors have continued to boycott the City.
Witnesses who are present during MDW and Harley week support the Defendants’
position. Violet Lucas, who has attended both rallies as a biker for the past five years, states that
she would disagree with the assertion that both of the events are the same. [Ex 28, Lucas Aff.]
Fannie Brown a long time resident of Myrtle Beach supports the Defendants position that
Memorial Day weekend is different. [Ex 29 Brown Affidavit] The majority of the witnesses who
have been deposed or have given statement support Defendants’ position that Memorial Day
weekend is unique.
Plaintiffs claim through their expert David Clarke that Memorial Day Weekend traffic
counts and hotel occupancy are the same as every other busy weekend in Myrle Beach.
Clarke’s claims are based on hotel occupancy numbers from surveys of certain large hotels and
limited SCDOT traffic counts outside of the City. Defendants dispute the Clarke’s data sources
and observations. [Ex 27 Report of Alpert and McLean and Ex 30 Stewart report] Further,
Clarke focuses only on Ocean Boulevard and the path of the traffic loop. He does not consider
the benefits of the traffic loop for relieving gridlock inside the City when the loop did not exist.
He does not consider the important factors regarding location, demographics and activities of the
MDW weekend visitors. [Ex 30, Stewart Report & Ex 8 Teague Report] As alleged in
Plaintiffs’ complaint a large segment of MDW visitors want to cruise and gather on Ocean
Boulevard. [ECF 84] MDW visitors’ activities are concentrated in a small area (approximately
13
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 14 of 25
0.5 square miles). [Ex 8, Teague Report] Videos depict where the where traffic and crowds
congregated during the 2014 MDW and past MDW events. [Ex 9,10, 13,14, &15]
As noted by Judge Quattlebaum in his order Plaintiffs have not carried their burden in
making a “clear showing” that they are likely to succeed on the merits as to similar events of
their equal protection claim. [ECF 50] Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not presented any
substantial new evidence in their second motion for preliminary injunction in connection with
the MDW crowd size, demographics or activities on Ocean Boulevard that would differentiate
Plaintiffs’ second motion from Plaintiffs’ first motion. Plaintiffs’ second motion should be
denied.
B. The Bikefest Task Force traffic loop resulted from public safety planning not intentional
discrimination.
Even if the Court assumed for the sake of argument that Memorial Day Weekend is the same
as every other busy weekend in Myrtle Beach, Plaintiffs cannot show that the Bikefest Task
Force’s traffic loop resulted from intentional or purposeful discrimination. Even when a
government action will not be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause unless the plaintiff
shows that the government action was motivated by discriminatory intent. Sylvia Dev. Corp. v.
The question of Defendants’ discriminatory intent was addressed directly to the President of
the Myrtle Beach Branch of the NAACP in a deposition. [Ex 41, Mickey James Dep. pp 13-18]
intent in their connection with MDW. He further testified that the Myrtle Beach Branch of the
NAACP never discussed filing the above captioned lawsuit and that he did not realize the lawsuit
14
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 15 of 25
In the absence of direct evidence of discriminatory intent, the Fourth Circuit has recognized
several factors that are probative of whether a decision making body was motivated by a
discriminatory intent, including: (1) evidence of a consistent pattern of actions by the decision
making body; (2) historical background of the decision, which may take into account any history
of discrimination by the decision making body or the jurisdiction it represents; (3) the specific
sequence of events leading up to the particular decision being challenged, including any
decisionmakers on the record or in minutes of their meetings. N.C. State Conference of NAACP
v. McCrory 831 F 3rd 204 (4th Cir, 2016); Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp.,
Judge Quattlebaum examined Plaintiffs’ claims using the “Arlington Heights” factors and
he found that Plaintiffs had not made a clear showing that Defendants were motivated by
discriminatory intent. [ECF 50] Defendants contend that their experts’ analysis and reports
together with discovery conducted thus far has strengthened their contention that Defendants
were not motivated by discriminatory intent. Defendants were motivated by the public safety
concerns expressed by professionally trained police officers who had experienced first hand the
A history of the origin and reasons for the Bikefest Task Force’s traffic loop are set forth
in the deposition of former City Manager Tom Leath. [Ex 5 Leath Depo.p115-144] By way of
summary, Ocean Boulevard runs north and south. On the east of Ocean Boulevard are large
multi-story hotels which border the Atlantic Ocean. On the west of Ocean Boulevard are other
businesses and parking facilities that serve the hotels. The separation of the hotels from the
15
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 16 of 25
businesses and parking facilities by Ocean Boulevard created a safety issue with visitors crossing
four lanes of traffic on Ocean Boulevard to get back and forth from their hotels. Tom Leath
addressed that issue before 2014 by installing pedestrian islands at various locations in Ocean
Boulevard. The pedestrian islands narrowed Ocean Boulevard to two lanes in the area where
In 2014 the need for a dedicated emergency access lane became obvious when 9
shootings including three homicides occurred in the City. Police cars and emergency vehicles
were unable to reach the scenes of the incidents in time. The cause of the response delays was
due to the massive influx of people and traffic along Ocean Boulevard. [Ex 12 Prock Depo. p.
42]. The dedication of the emergency access lane together with the presence of public safety
islands on Ocean Boulevard caused the City to return to one way traffic on Ocean Boulevard.
[Ex 5, Leath Depo. p 118] One way traffic led to a question of where to send all of the traffic
once it reached the south end of Ocean Boulevard. Id. In past years, directing the traffic back
into the City along Kings Highway caused massive gridlock on Ocean Boulevard, Kings
In the planning stage for the emergency lane and one way traffic, Chief Gall
recommended sending the traffic from the south end of Ocean Boulevard to nearby Highway 544
and Socastee. [Id. at 123] Mr. Leath recognized a problem with sending the traffic to another
residential area outside of the City. Id. Mr. Leath asked the Chief to communicate with Horry
County government about where to send the traffic from Ocean Boulevard. [Id. at 219]
Defendants did not think it was fair to other entities to cause the traffic to go into residential
areas outside the City near Highway 544. [Id. at p. 219] At that point a traffic loop designed to
send traffic through sparsely populated areas began to be seriously considered. The City had
16
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 17 of 25
considered traffic loop patterns in the past years as a solution to the massive influx of traffic.
For various reasons the City did not implement a traffic loop. Traffic loops are common public
safety techniques and are used in many areas with similar traffic congestion and cruising
What distinguished Defendants’ traffic planning after 2014 MDW, was that the Coastal
Alliance had established the Bikefest Task Force to address the problems that arose throughout
Horry County in 2014. [Ex 7, Lazarus Depo. p. 153] The Bikefest Task Force members
included representatives of all the stakeholders or government entities that would be affected by
traffic planning for the MDW traffic. The Bikefest Task Force coordinated communications
among all the stakeholders. Several traffic loop patterns were considered by the stakeholders.
The 23.1 mile traffic loop was finally chosen by consensus of all the stakeholders. Actually,
SCDOT drew out the final traffic loop pattern. [Ex 7, Lazarus Depo. p. 180] The traffic loop
chosen by the Bikefest Task Force and the Coastal Alliance includes 6.1 miles of roads
The traffic loop pattern was first implemented before the occurrence of the very next
Memorial Day weekend in 2015. [Ex 6 Ellenburg Dec.] Some initial problems arose with traffic
flow going to and from the airport 2015. Those problems were addressed and other adjustments
have been made over the four years the loop has been in operation. The consensus of the
stakeholders in the Bikefest Task Force is that the traffic loop works and it serves its intended
One of the key reasons the traffic loop works is that local police officers have the
flexibility to adjust to the dynamics of any given situation in real time during the operation of the
loop. [Ex 8, Mark Teague report] Officially, the traffic loop pattern operates from 10 pm to 2 am
17
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 18 of 25
on Friday Saturday and Sunday Nights. [Ex 26, Crosby Video] Those times were chosen because
in past years those time were when traffic concerns were most prevalent on Ocean Boulevard.
[Ex12, Prock Dep. p. 195] During the loop times all side streets of Ocean Boulevard are blocked
to prevent motorists from creating their own traffic loops and locking the City down with
gridlock. [Ex. 8 Teague Report & Ex 26, Crosby Video]. Police officers have the discretion to
lift barriers on streets in certain circumstances to allow visitors to get to their hotels. [Ex 8,
Teague report] Further if the traffic volume on Ocean Boulevard does not justify use of the
traffic loop, the Police Chief in consultation with the other stakeholders has the authority to end
the operation of the traffic loop before 2 am or to not implement the traffic loop on a given
The existence of the traffic loop plan and its details are communicated extensively to the
general public though news media, pamphlets, apps, and social media postings. [Ex. 8 Teague
Report & Ex 26, Crosby Video] Defendants have created an app to show MDW visitors how to
navigate through the City during hours when the loop is in operation. Id. Defendants efforts to
communicate to the general public and MDW visitors information about navigating in the City
cuts against Plaintiffs’ claims that the purpose of the traffic loop is to frustrate MDW visitors or
Plaintiffs claim that the Bikefest Task Force traffic loop is just the latest iteration of
Defendants’ long history of discriminatory treatment of Black Bike Week. Setting aside the fact
that Defendants were not the sole decision makers on the traffic loop and setting aside the fact
that SCDOT made the final decision on the traffic loop, Plaintiffs have omitted the important fact
that for three years immediately before the creation of the traffic loop (2011 – 2014) two way
18
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 19 of 25
traffic was allowed Ocean Boulevard and side streets were open. That traffic pattern is the same
pattern that Plaintiffs have requested in the present lawsuit. Plaintiffs have omitted the fact that
that traffic pattern was a tragic failure which caused the traffic loop adopted by the Bikefest Task
Force and the approved by the Coastal Alliance. [Ex 7, Lazarus Depo. p. 214]
Plaintiffs’ references to political statements made 15 years ago by Mark McBride and /or
Judge Wooten’s preliminary order are not relevant to the Court’s consideration of current traffic
loop. Different standards and different facts existed in 2005. Mark McBride was not mayor
when the decision to create a traffic loop was made. Judge Wooten’s order only directed that
traffic patterns should be equal for both MDW and Harley Week in the month May. The Court
should note that Judge Wooten’s preliminary injunction order was summarily stayed by the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. As Judge Quattlebaum noted, the facts were substantially
different and the elements for obtaining a preliminary injunction were different in 2005. [ECF 50
fn 6]
The 2009 ordinance decisions including the helmet ordinance made by the City show that
the City was not motivated by racial considerations. The ordinances applied equally to both
Harley Week and Bikefest. Many of the same claims of discrimination made by the Plaintiffs in
the present lawsuit were made by the white bikers who attended Harley Week. [Ex 6, Ellenburg
Decl.] White Harley Week visitors were so offended by the acts of the City that they declared a
Plaintiffs have ignored and omitted the actual sequence of events from the initial police
summit through the decision making process of the Bikefest Task Force stated hereinabove from
their arguments of intentional discrimination. Instead, Plaintiffs claim Defendants did not do any
19
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 20 of 25
meaningful studies or analysis of the effect of the traffic loop. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claim is
intentional discrimination is shown by default. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ claim that all the
planning, analysis and considerations done by the Defendants together with the Bikefest Task
Defendants have filed expert reports from experts in three different fields who have
analyzed Defendants’ planning and the experts have demonstrated the effect he implementation
of the traffic loop has had since was implemented in 2015. Those experts considered films of
traffic conditions before the loop was implemented and they have observed either in person or
investigated the effect of the traffic loop on MDW. Defendants experts have all concluded that
planning that led to the traffic loop was proper. [Ex. 8, 27 & 30]
Traffic engineer Mark Teague concluded: “The traffic management plan was designed,
prepared, and implemented through extensive stakeholder input (event participants, local
residents, government officials, event observers, and local businesses).” “The traffic
management plan extension that is in effect during the most intense hours of the event serves as a
way to mitigate potential congestion on other north - south routes such as Oak Street, Kings
Highway, and US 17. All of which serve critical community and regional facilities such as
Police Safety expert Robert Stewart found: “The employment of a ‘loop’ traffic pattern
during ‘peak’ evening and night times during the Bikefest event is necessary for the safe
movement of the motoring public along Ocean Boulevard and the protection of pedestrians and
event goers on the adjacent sidewalks and intersections. Preventing motor vehicle gridlock is
one of the biggest public safety goals for the event.” [Ex 30, Stewart report]
Even if the court were to set aside all of the training, expertise planning and empirical
20
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 21 of 25
observations of the Defendants’ police officers who have worked MDW for decades, Plaintiffs
have not shown how the traffic loop’s effect on MDW visitors could have been analyzed
differently before it was implemented. Plaintiffs experts focus solely on the amount of time it
took for their witnesses to navigate the traffic loop after it was in effect. They have no data for
traffic times on Ocean Boulevard before the loop was implemented. Defendants’ witnesses
dispute Plaintiffs’ claims on the amount of time it takes to navigate the loop. Further just getting
from point A to point B on Ocean Boulevard is not the only purpose of the traffic loop. [Ex 8,
Teague report]
Defendants contend the results of the traffic safety plan show that it accomplished the
true intent of the decision makers i.e. the Bikefest Task Force. Criminology experts Geoff Alpert
and Kyle McLean concluded: “An analysis of activities between MDW and other weekends
show that the public safety burden on MDW has been reduced in recent years, 2015 - 2018.
Since the formation of the Bike Week Task Force, MDW has seen decreases in multiple events
including calls for service, motor vehicle collisions, motor vehicle collisions with injury, serious
violent crime, and serious property crime. It is likely that operational plan for MDW by the Bike
Week Task Force has influenced these changes.” [Ex 27 Alpert & McLean report]
statements by legislators showing a discriminatory intent because there were no legislative acts.
Defendants contend that the Bikefest Task Force public safety officials who created the traffic
loop were trained public safety professionals and not popularly elected government officials.
The decision makers were public safety officials who were not concerned with getting re-elected.
Their sole responsibility is to keep the public safe. If public safety officials perform their jobs
21
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 22 of 25
properly, they will be secure in keeping their jobs. If public safety officials create unlawful and
unenforceable public safety plans or fail to keep the public safe, they will be replaced.
Plaintiffs have produced a 2014 e-mail from then Assistant City Manager John Pederson
who was of the opinion that the public safety issues of the large influx of traffic and vehicles
MDW could be improved if less people came to the City during MDW. Plaintiffs claim this was
a comment that depicted Defendants’ discriminatory intent. Plaintiffs have omitted the fact that
at the time of the e-mail, Assistant City Manager Pederson’s e-mail had no effect on Defendants
planning and decision making. [Ex 5 Leath Dep. p158] Further, Pederson’s e-mail does not
Plaintiffs assumption that Mr. Pederson’s use of the phrase “sucking the fun out of the
event” depicts a discriminatory intent is not supported by other evidence. When Mickey James,
President of the Myrtle Beach Branch of the NAACP, was asked if he believed Mr. Pederson
was motivated by discriminatory intent, he stated he had no opinion on that issue. [Ex 41,
For the above stated reasons, Defendants respectfully contend that Plaintiffs have not
shown that they will likely succeed on the merits of their claims that Bikefest Task Force traffic
whether such harms are irreparable is not clearly established. See City of Memphis v. Greene,
451 U.S. 100, 101 S. Ct. 1584, 67 L. Ed. 2d 769 (1981); Justice Res. Ctr. v. Louisville-Jefferson
Cty. Metro. Gov't, No. CIV A 07-209-C, 2007 WL 1302708, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 30, 2007).
Plaintiffs do allege additional claims of inconvenience, exhaustion, and frustration resulting from
22
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 23 of 25
the traffic loop. However, as again noted by Judge Quattlebaum those claims are not the kinds
of harm that warrant a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is not normally available
where the harm at issue can be remedied by money damages. Bethesda Softworks, L.L.C. v.
Interplay Entm't Corp., 452 F. App'x 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2011). Typically, injunctions are sought
and granted on an emergency basis to prevent a change in the status quo and to preserve the
court’s ability to render a meaningful judgement on the merits. Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307,
318 (4th Cir. 2013). Here, the Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit and filed their first request for a
temporary injunction in February 2018, to change a traffic plan that has been used since 2015.
Judge Quattlebaum found that Plaintiffs’ delay cuts against their claims of irreparable harm. See
De La Fuente v. South Carolina Democratic Party, 164 F.Supp.3d 794, 804 (D.S.C. 2016).
BALANCE OF EQUITIES.
The balance of equities tip strongly in favor of the Defendants. Defendants contend the
favorable balance by the exhibits, the testimony of Myrtle Beach Police Chief Amy Prock and
the testimony of Captain Joey Crosby that traffic gridlock, disorderly crowds, and violence has
occurred over past Memorial Day Weekends in the area of Ocean Boulevard governed by the
traffic plan that the Plaintiffs seek to enjoin. [ECF 95-70, pp 94 -132]
For the Plaintiffs, the most serious actual injury would be inconvenience, exhaustion, and
frustration resulting from the traffic loop for a possible total of twelve hours during MDW. [ECF
76] That inconvenience would only occur between the hours of 10 pm and 2 am. In contrast,
forcing Defendants to police a potentially unsafe extraordinary event with an inadequate public
safety plan and deny Defendants the use of techniques used by other jurisdictions under similar
conditions, jeopardizes the safety of the MDW visitors, City residents and the police. See Winter
v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 26, 129 S. Ct. 365, 378, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).
23
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 24 of 25
PUBLIC INTEREST
The Plaintiff must also show that the injunction is in the public interest in order to be
granted preliminary injunctive relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “In exercising their sound discretion,
courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the
extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Id. at 24 (internal citations omitted). For similar reasons
stated above Defendants contend that the public’s interest is more likely served if the Plaintiffs’
As Judge Quattlebaum noted in his order, this case is similar to the case of Justice Res.
Ctr. v. Louisville-Jefferson Cty. Metro. Gov't, 2007 WL 1302708 (W.D. Ky. 2007). In that case,
the plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction of a traffic plan in place for the 2007 Kentucky
Derby Festival which called for the closure of Broadway from 9th Street West to 34th Street,
a section of the road that runs through a predominantly African-American area of the city.
Id. at *1. The plaintiffs alleged that the road closure would cause profit loss and irreparably harm
African-American owned businesses located along the stretch of road subject to closure under
the traffic plan. Id. The plaintiffs also alleged that the road closure constituted racial
discrimination and disparate treatment in violation of their rights under the 14th Amendment. Id.
The defendants in that case claimed that the traffic plan was developed in reaction to cruising, the
act of driving up and down the boulevard to be seen. Id. They further claimed that Derby Day
cruising developed into excessive gridlock, large crowds, and deadly violence. Id.
In considering whether to grant the plaintiffs request for preliminary injunction in Justice
Resource Center, the Court assumed that the plaintiffs met their burden of showing a likelihood
of success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable harm. Id. at *6. Even with that assumption,
the Court found that the balance of the equities tipped in favor of the Defendants and that the public
24
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102 Page 25 of 25
interest favored denial of the injunction. Id. The Court based this decision primarily on the risk of
harm to the public if the traffic plan were enjoined where there was evidence of unacceptable level
of criminal behavior in the absence of a traffic plan during past Derby weekends including a
deny the preliminary injunction requested by the Plaintiffs. Although the Plaintiffs have raised
issues about the effectiveness of the Bikefest traffic plan, the evidence and expert reports
provided by the Defendants and together with the testimony of Chief Prock and Captain Crosby
indicate that the traffic plan in place for Memorial Day Weekend attempts to serve a legitimate
public interest in decreasing traffic congestion from Ocean Boulevard throughout the City,
providing a clear path for emergency response vehicles and providing for the public safety in
general. When considering the alleged injuries to the Plaintiffs with the demonstrated public
interest in preventing problems with traffic gridlock, disorderly crowds and violence that might
occur on Ocean Boulevard and surrounding areas if the City’s plan is enjoined, Defendants
contend that the public interest will be best served if the Defendants are allowed to proceed with
the Bikefest Task Force traffic plan for Memorial Day Weekend 2019. See Winter v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 26, 129 S. Ct. 365, 378, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs’ second Motion
_s/Michael W. Battle___________
Michael W. Battle Fed ID # 1243 (mbattle@battlelawsc.com)
James R. Battle Fed ID #10221 (jbattle@battlelawsc.com)
Battle Law Firm, LLC
Attorneys for Defendants
25
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
4:18-cv-00554-DCC Date
DateFiled
Filed03/08/19
03/28/18 Entry
EntryNumber
Number102-1
24-2 Page
Page11of
of33
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
4:18-cv-00554-DCC Date
DateFiled
Filed03/08/19
03/28/18 Entry
EntryNumber
Number102-1
24-2 Page
Page22of
of33
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
4:18-cv-00554-DCC Date
DateFiled
Filed03/08/19
03/28/18 Entry
EntryNumber
Number102-1
24-2 Page
Page33of
of33
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 7ryF
Entry rb r16
Number 102-2 Page
Page
lo 123
of 25
FILED
fJtJL-2 2004
LARRY PROPES GLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLTNA
FLORENCE DIVISION
CRAIG WILLIAMS
LEWIS ELY JR Civil Action No 14 03 I13Z- 12
JOCELYN MERCER-BROWN
MERLE STEWART FIRST AMENDED
WASHICA LITTLE COMPLAINT
MIChAEL LITTLE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MICHAEL GOOD
CHRISTOPHER COLEMAN
BARBARA COLEMAN
ANTHONY TONIC
Plaintiffs
Defendants
_________
Nature of Action
This action arises from the Defendants discriminatory policies and conduct in
connection with motorcycle event called Black Bike Week held annually in the Myrtle Beach
DEF0001 7746
___ rb r16
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry
Fr rylNumber 102-2 Page2o
Page 223of 25
Black Bike
and motorcycle enthusiasts from locations throughout the United States During
and
Week in contrast to other significant events in Myrtle Beach Defendants adopt implement
protected rights
the deprivation of the Plaintiffs constitutional rights by Defendants the City of Myrtle Beach
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C
Parties
association whose parent body was organized under the laws of the State of New York in 1911
The Conway Branch NAACP the Branch is affiliated and charted by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People Inc NAACP The Branch is registered
As one of the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the nation the purpose
of the NAACP is to ensure the elimination of all racial barriers that deprive AfricamAmerican
citizens of the privileges and burdens of civil and constitutional rights in the United States
equal
DEF0001 7747
01JT737TtVDaºThd
4:18-cv-00554-MGL 07/0
Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry
Fr ry Number 102-2
16 Page 323of 25
Page
South Carolina
Myrtle Beach
The Branch has been forced to divert resources away from its educational
and referral services in order to investigate and counteract the Defendants adoption
counseling
and of discriminatory policies and practices for Black Bike Week The Branch
implementation
retained the services of one or more persons to investigate the facts surrounding the
also has
The Branch this action on its own behalf and on behalf of adversely
brings
agents As motorcyclist he attended Black Bike Week in 1998 1999 2000 and 2001 and was
restrictions and
offended and inconvenienced by the discriminatory traffic aggressive police
implemented by the Defendants He plans to go to Myrtle Beach over Memorial Day Weekend
-3-
DEF0001 7748
4cvUt2TtWt
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Dateefl 07070
Filed 03/08/19 Entry
Fr ry Number 102-2
16 Page 423of 25
Page
She is member of the Williamsbridge Branch of the NAACP Plaintiff Mercer-Brown has been
As motorcyclist he attended Black Bike Week in 2002 and was offended and
agents
member of the NAACP Plaintiff Little has been adversely affected by the acts policies and
of Defendants and their agents She has been in Myrtle Beach over Memorial Day
practices
Weekend Black Bike Week for the past five years She was offended and inconvenienced
during
Defendants
Plaintiff Little has been affected by the acts policies and practices of Defendants and
adversely
Bike
their agents He has been in Myrtle Beach over Memorial Day Weekend during Black
Week for the past five years He was offended and inconvenienced by the discriminatory traffic
-4-
DEF0001 7749
4O3-rOT737TtW
4:18-cv-00554-MGL DateeT111TfO27t34FT-
Filed 03/08/19 Entry
ry Number 102-2
16 Page 523of 25
Page
agents He was in Myrtle Beach over Memorial Day Weekend during Black Bike Week in 2002
and 2003 He was offended and inconvenienced by the discriminatory traffic restrictions and
agents She was in Myrtle Beach over Memorial Day Weekend during Black Bike Week in
2003 She was offended and inconvenienced by the discriminatory traffic restrictions and
Black Bike
and their agents He was in Myrtle Beach over Memorial Day Weekend during
Week in 2003 He was offended and inconvenienced by the discriminatory traffic restrictions
He has been in Myrtle Beach over Memorial Day Weekend during Black Bike Week for
agents
the past six years He was offended and inconvenienced by the discriminatory traffic restrictions
-5-
DEF0001 7750
4-93effl3-Ft-WfDateeIidU71
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Filed 03/08/19
210zr Entry
rily Number 102-2
16 Page 623of 25
Page
of the
20 Defendant Warren Gall is the Chief of the Myrtle Beach Police Department
Factual Allegations
have
and methods for these two special events the Defendants
traffic management plans policing
federal rights
in Black Bike Week of fundamental constitutionally protected
Harley Week
24 The Harley Davidson Week Harley Week or Harley Rally began in the
beach bonfire
followed by an evening
-6-
DEF0001 7751
4Ocvt73711TVVDa
4:18-cv-00554-MGL DateeF dO7TO2O
Filed 03/08/19 Entry
Fr ry Number 102-2
16 Page 723of 25
Page
return
and
28 common for Harley Davidson motorcyclists
Among other activities it is
Myrtle Beach
to the beachfront of This
Boulevard major thoroughfare that travels parallel
of the Atlantic Beach Bike Festival which is commonly called Black Bike Week in the small
-7-
DEF0001 7752
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry
ry Number 102-2
16 Page 823of 25
Page
continue to separate
32 Many vestiges of past government-enforced segregation
Atlantic Beachs 400 African-American residents from the two neighboring towns For example
fences
Atlantic Beach with the height of Black Bike Week occurring over Memorial Day weekend
the participants in and enthusiasts of Black Bike Week congregate to or stay in Myrtle
many of
Beach
enthusiasts to drive or cruise through the City of Myrtle Beach along Ocean Boulevard
-8-
DEF0001 7753
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry
ry Number 102-2
16 Page 923of 25
Page
industry began to exhibit overt hostility toward Black Bike Week which is in sharp contrast to
rules and
Week activities from occurring in Myrtle Beach have implemented special policies
taken other actions to interfere with Black Bike Week visitors travel to Myrtle Beach
39 Black Bike Weeks most vocal critics Myrtle Beach Mayor Mark
Among is
advocated the
McBride Prior to his election in 1998 Mark McBride as city councilman
elimination of Black Bike Week events in Myrtle Beach After taking office as Mayor Mr
Mc Bride lobbied the State of South Carolina to deploy the National Guard to Myrtle Beach
Myrtle Beach
from entering The has never reciucsted the
discourage participants Mayor
40 Tn 1998 The Myrtle Beach Sun Times quoted Mr McBride as saying that during
the height of Black Bike Week on Memorial Day Weekend felt uncomfortable
41 After his election as Mayor Mr McBride has demanded and obtained greater
-9-
DEF0001 7754
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Tr
Tc1O7702JG Entry
ry Number 102-2
16 PagPage
10 1023
of 25
district
and through the heart of Myrtle Beachs entertainment
cruise both
Myrtle Beach to in
congested with traffic It is common activity for visitors to
Boulevard
Boulevard and around to cruise in the opposite direction along Ocean
turning
44 Prior to 1998 the City of Myrtle Beach permitted two-way traffic along Ocean
with to
and discriminatory policies and practices respect
Defendants have adopted implemented
Under of
Day weekend
traffic portions
Black Bike Week during Memorial this proposed plan
said this
plan the City and the police that
Boulevard would he restricted When announcing this
atmosphere to develop
46 ln accordance with its announcement the following plan was implemented during
10-
DEF0001 7755
4-U3--cvor7TrVsrDate
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Filed 03/08/19
aTeFTr071o2IcF Fy Number 102-2
Entry 16 PagPage
11 1123
of 25
closed traffic
47 For Black Bike Week in 1999 Ocean Boulevard was to two-way
on the two
Avenue South the citys southern limits at Business 17 Kings highway Traffic
from 600 p.m Thursday May 27 1999 to 600 n.m Monday May 31 1999 Parking was
-Il
DEF0001 7756
4O /2-HWDae
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 VIIEItU1tOIO4 Entry
Er ry Number 102-2
16 PagPage
12 1223
of 25
52 In contrast to Black Bike Week for Harley Week in 1998 1999 and 2000
traffic was permitted along Ocean Boulevard and right turns along Ocean
unrestricted two-way
and
Boulevard were not restricted No new parking prohibitions were implemented special
54 the height of Harley Week from 700 a.m Thursday May 172001 to
During
southbound traffic only from 29 Avenue North to 29t11 Avenue South Rights turns
one-way
Avenue North Avenue North Avenue North 1h Avenue North 3Td Avenue South
12
DEF0001 7757
4OcvO1721tWT a1CFfO77O77O4Er
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102-2
16 PagPage
13 1323
of 25 ri
Avenue South qt1 Avenue South l3 Avenue South and 17th Avenue South Special areas
be significant differences
Boulevard during both biker weekends in 2001 there continued to
Defendants continued
For Harley Week the to permit
between the two traffic patterns 2001
with traffic compared to the severe restrictions on right turns during Black
intersection light
Bike Week and lifted the one-way restrictions on Sunday morning during the main Harley
of complaints from Harley Week enthusiasts and Myrtle Beachs hospitality industry
surge
the traffic
the Defendants returned to two-way pattern
city officials and the business community
Ocean Boulevard
along
13-
DEF0001 7758
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102-2
16 PagPage 1423
of 25
that and there were no restrictions on right turns Parking was not permitted along Ocean
area
Boulevard from 30th Avenue North to 29th Avenue South in Myrtle Beach
under the plan for the height of Black Bike Week during Memorial Day weekend
63 The Defendants deploy up to three times more law enforcement officials during
of Harley Week
the height of Black Bike Week than those officers deployed during the height
64 In contrast during the height of Harley Week for these same years the
force and to
Bike Week the Defendants direct the intimidating police to police aggressively
-14-
DEF0001 7759
4:18-cv-00554-MGL G77O7/Or
Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry rb r16
Number
ryl 102-2 PagPage
1501523
of 25
Beach Sun Times reported that Mayor McBride answered by stating To enforce the
Myrtle
law
68 The of Myrtle Beach and the Myrtle Beach Police Department rely upon
City
law enforcement officials to the City of Myrtle Beach to implement the discriminatory policies
and Ocean
of these crowds to Myrtle Beach
Day Weekend All events attract
Labor significant
15
DEF0001 7760
43v--Bl7FtaehidU71U21O4EflTryF rb r16
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102-2 PagPage
16o1623
of 25
in significant
traffic congestion
Boulevard resulting
Ocean Boulevard
Week
the
traffic restrictions to deploy three times
the decisions to deploy racially discriminatory
16
DEF0001 7761
---4evi
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102-2
/d9l9DaeTluitU11O1O4FiTy 16 PagPage
17 1723
of 25
mental
Plaintiffs have and will continue to suffer damages humiliation embarrassment
Defendants and
the constitutionality of the discriminatory practices policies
concerning
described above
COUNT
78 Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation of 1-73 as
of State law
impairment under color
against
42 U.S.C 1981
herein constitute of
81 The foregoing conduct of Defendants described deprivation
the full and benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security
the rights of the Plaintiffs to equal
17
DEF0001 7762
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102-2
16 PagPage 1823
of 25
violation of 42
of persons and on the same terms as are enjoyed by white persons in
property
USC 1981
Plaintiffs to
citizens and has subjected
security of all persons and property as is enjoyed by white
COUNT II
83 Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation ofJ 1-78 as
U.S.C 1983
85 Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and are within the jurisdiction
thereof
COUNT Ill
18-
DEF0001 7763
U3c\rO1aT37TtWT Date
4:18-cv-00554-MGL FI1772/O
ate Filed 03/08/19 Entry
Fr ry Number 102-2
16 PagPage
19 1923
of 25
U.S.C 1983
90 Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and are within the jurisdiction
thereof
certain rights
91 The United States Constitution as amended grants Plaintiffs
Fourteenth Amendment
COUNT IV
U.S.C 1983
thereof
-19-
DEF0001 7764
4OSvQ17321t
4:18-cv-00554-MGL wr
Date Filedd1T1TJ2T04F
03/08/19 Entry Number 102-2 ry 16 PagPage
20 2023of 25
COUNT
forth herein
though fully set
that
99 Section 3789d provides in pertinent part
42 U.SC 3789dcl
3789d
102 of Myrtle Beach and Horry County receive federal funding for
Defendants City
States Code
law enlbrcement purposes as provided for under Title 42 Chapter 46 of the United
20
DEF0001 7765
4OrOTT37TLW13a
4:18-cv-00554-MGL DateeT1ffO7/O7O FæyNumber 102-2
Filed 03/08/19 Entry 16 PagPage
21 2123
of 25
administrative remedies
103 Plaintiff NAACP Conway Branch has fully exhausted its
of
to its and the other Plaintiffs constitutional rights arid any further pursuit
in seeking protect
COUNT VI
105 Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation of 1-98 as
SC Stat 16-5-60
-21-
DEF0001 7766
43v O11fffWDa
4:18-cv-00554-MGL TcrOJOJTy
Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry Number 102-2
16 PagPage
22 2223
of 25
of of laws
under the First Amendment and the rights equal protection
association guaranteed
certain rights
109 Article of the Constitution of South Carolina grants Plaintiffs
the
direct Defendants the City of Myrtle Beach and Horry County to notify
of 42 U.S.C 3789d
-22-
DEF0001 7767
-4eE2-LW-
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry
atefrtud-Qi1U21O4Fflrry Number 102-2
16 PagPage
23 2323
of 25
future
23
DEF0001 7768
403r iI732 Tt
4:18-cv-00554-MGL FfO77Y
Date Filed 03/08/19 Entry
Er ry Number 102-2
16 PagPage 2423
of 25
Fed Civ 38b the Plaintiffs demand trial by jury of all issues so
Pursuant to
triable as of right
Respectfully submitted
Derfner
Ii PetersWilborn Jr ID
DERFNER ALTMAN WILBORN LLC
40 Calhoun Street Suite 410
Edmund Burke
Paul Hurst
Frank Griffin IV
STEPTOE JOHNSON LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington DC 20036
Roderic Boggs
Reed Colfax
Richard Ritter
Joshua Rose
ROSE ROSE
1320 19th Street NW
Washington DC 20036
-24-
DEF0001 7769
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date
Da Filed 03/08/19
07/0210 Entry
Fr ry Number 102-2
16 PagPage
23 2523
of 25
Jeffrey Robinson
Baltimore MD 21215
Florence SC
January 29 2004
25
DEF0001 7770
403 01732 TIW
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Dae Filed
Date d0/12/0o
03/08/19 Entry rb r94
Fr ryFNumber 102-3PagPage
lo 1 of 2
Plaintiffs
This matter comes before the Court upon the defendants filing of correspondence dated May
10 2005 The defendants request that this letter be construed as being motion to stay
this Courts
May 2005 Order which granted the plaintiffs previous request for preliminary injunction The
Pursuant to Rule 62a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure there is no automatic stay of
final judgment in an action for an injunction otherwise ordered by the court Rule 62c
further provides that court in its discretion may suspend. .an injunction during the pendency of
appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it deems proper.. Hence court has
injunction pending appeal either prior to the filing of such an appeal when there is reason to
believe that an appeal will be taken or after filing of the appeal even though after the taking of
the appeal the district court no longer has jurisdiction over the case Wang Laboratories Inc
Toshiba Corp 1991 WL 333701 E.D Va 1991 citing Wright Miller Federal Practice
DEF0001 7846
403 01732 TIW
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Dae Filed
Date d0/12/0o
03/08/19 Entry rb r94
Fr ryFNumber 2o 2 of 2
102-3PagPage
discretion to stay the judgment and injunction pending consideration of post-judgment motions and
pending appeal Wang Laboratories Inc Toshiba Corp 1991 WL 333701 E.D Va 1991
In deciding whether to stay an injunction court should consider whether the stay
applicant has made strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits whether the
applicant will be irreparably injured absent stay whether issuance of the stay will substantially
injure the other parties interested in the proceeding and where the public interest lies Id citing
Standard Havens Products Inc Gecor Industries Inc 897 F.2d 511 512 Fed Cir 1990
Based upon the undersigneds consideration of the above-identified factors and for the
reasons detailed in this Courts May 2005 Order the undersigned concludes that stay of this
Courts May 2005 Order is not appropriate Therefore the defendants motion to stay is
DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED
s/ Terry Wooten
Terry Wooten
United States District Court Judge
May 12 2005
DEF0001 7847
cv 01732 TIW
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date
Da Filed
Lct 03/08/19 Entry
ry Number 102-4
97 PagPage 1 of 1
05/17/05 0959 FAX 4ui IJQ CL
No 051517
CA03-1732--4TLW
Plaintiffs Appellees
Defendants Appellants
Party-in-interest
and
Defendant
ORDE
Is Patricia Connor
CLERK
DEF0001 7843