Dustin Thomas House Darden v. Suzanne LaFrance, in her individual capacity and official capacity as Mayor of Anchorage, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Alaska considers five pending motions in Dustin Thomas House Darden v. Suzanne LaFrance, et al., arising from Darden’s removal from an Anchorage Assembly meeting and subsequent exclusion from another meeting. The court addresses requests for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief, expedited consideration, an extension of time, and entry of default. Based on the record excerpt, the court concludes that Darden had not shown a likelihood of success or irreparable harm sufficient to warrant preliminary relief.

Holdings

1. Darden did not establish a likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits because the Assembly's restriction of his speech to the subject matter of the pending ordinance was reasonable and viewpoint neutral, and his removal followed repeated warnings that his testimony was not germane.
2. Darden did not establish a likelihood of success or serious questions on his claims that his removal from the January 13 meeting and exclusion from the January 27 meeting violated the Alaska Open Meetings Act or related Anchorage provisions.
3. Darden failed to demonstrate that irreparable harm was likely absent emergency injunctive relief.
4. Municipal Defendants demonstrated good cause and excusable neglect, so the court extended their deadline to respond to the amended complaint to March 24, 2026.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Darden established a likelihood of success or serious questions on his First Amendment claim that his removal from the January 13, 2026 Anchorage Assembly meeting was unconstitutional.
2. Whether Darden established a likelihood of success or serious questions on his claims under the Alaska Open Meetings Act and related Anchorage municipal provisions.
3. Whether Darden demonstrated likely irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
4. Whether Municipal Defendants showed good cause and excusable neglect warranting an extension of time to respond to the amended complaint.
5. Whether entry of default was appropriate after the court extended Municipal Defendants' response deadline.

Disposition

other