UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BURT CAMENZIND, an individual, No. 22-15931

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:19-cv-00632- MCE-AC CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION AND STATE FAIR; RICK PICKERING, in his official capacity as General OPINION Manager of California Exposition and State Fair,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 19, 2023 San Francisco, California

Filed October 31, 2023

Before: Lawrence VanDyke and Gabriel P. Sanchez, Circuit Judges, and Robert S. Lasnik, * District Judge. * The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. 2 CAMENZIND V. CA EXPOSITION & STATE FAIR

Opinion by Judge Sanchez; Partial Dissent by Judge VanDyke

SUMMARY **

First Amendment/Public Fora

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in an action alleging that state police officers violated the First Amendment and the Speech Clause of the California Constitution when they removed plaintiff Burt Camenzind from a privately organized Hmong New Year Festival at the state-owned California Exposition and State Fair (“CalExpo”) for distributing religious tokens to attendees. Officers told Camenzind that he could distribute his tokens in designated zones, referred to as Free Speech Zones, outside the entry gates but not inside the festival itself. Camenzind nevertheless purchased a ticket, entered the festival, began handing out tokens, and was subsequently ejected. He brought suit alleging that the Cal Expo fairgrounds, in their entirety, constitute a traditional “public forum,” analogous to a public park, thereby entitling his speech to the most robust constitutional protections. The panel first held that the enclosed, ticketed portion of the fairgrounds constituted a nonpublic forum under the United States Constitution and the California Speech Clause.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. CAMENZIND V. CA EXPOSITION & STATE FAIR 3

The space did not permit free access, its boundaries were clearly delineated by a fence, and no evidence suggested that access had previously been granted as a matter of course. The panel further noted that California courts have drawn distinctions between ticketed and unticketed portions of venues, and Camenzind pointed to no case holding that an enclosed area with a paid-entry requirement constitutes a public forum. The panel determined that it need not decide whether the area outside the fence was a public forum under the First Amendment because the California Speech Clause provided independent support for Camenzind’s argument that it was indeed such a forum, albeit subject to reasonable restrictions on speech. The panel concluded that the Free Speech Zones in the exterior fairgrounds were a valid regulation of the time, place, and manner of Camenzind’s speech. The guidelines on distributing literature in the enclosed area were likewise permissible. Dissenting in part, Judge VanDyke agreed with much of the majority’s analysis, but did not think the majority properly applied California law to determine whether the area inside the fence was a public forum under the California Speech Clause, nor was the record sufficiently developed to make that determination. Accordingly, Judge VanDyke would remand for the district court to develop the record and p