Acosta claims to go to trial

A federal civil lawsuit filed against Costa Mesa by a Latino activist who allegedly disturbed a 2006 City Council meeting has been whittled down to two main claims out of nearly a dozen and will go to trial in February, attorneys said Thursday.

In a 25-page order issued last week, federal Judge David Carter narrowed Benito Acosta’s claims against the city to a question of the 1st Amendment and Costa Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor’s conduct related to Acosta’s eviction from a Jan. 3, 2006 City Council meeting. The judge rejected Acosta’s claims that the police unlawfully arrested him and battered him, but left intact the more significant issues related to his constitutional rights.

Acosta, who also goes by the name Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, was thrown out of the Council meeting after he called Mansoor and another council member racist for backing legislation that would have police enforce federal immigration laws. Acosta asked people in the audience to stand with him in support, quickly followed by Mansoor breaking the meeting for recess and police arresting Acosta for not leaving.

Acosta mimicked the actions of anti-illegal immigration activist and Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist earlier in the meeting when he asked supporters of Mansoor and the legislation to stand. They quickly sat down, and Gilchrist continued to speak.

Soon after the incident, Acosta slapped the city and the police officers involved with a federal lawsuit backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, claiming they had violated his right to free speech, illegally detained him and used excessive force, among other things.

Last week’s ruling absolves police of any wrongdoing.

City prosecutors are still trying to criminally prosecute Acosta for his behavior and are waiting to see if the state Court of Appeals will hear the case.

The judge’s ruling illustrates what will be left up to a jury.

“Acosta’s speech, on a pending proposal in the City Council, was a political speech at the core of the 1st Amendment protection,” Carter wrote in the decision. “Genuine issues of … fact exist as to whether preventing Acosta from continuing to address the council was a reasonable regulation of that speech.”

Mansoor has the right to cut-short a speaker, but he has to give fair warning before silencing him, the judge said. He acknowledged that Acosta’s due process in that may have been abridged.

“[City code] prohibits ‘disorderliness by members of the audience’ at a City Council meeting. Acosta was not a member of the audience. However, it may have been permissible for Mansoor to silence him if he were encouraging audience members to violate this section. It is not clear that Acosta was doing so.”

These points, along with whether Mansoor silenced Acosta properly and gave him due process, will be left to a jury. All other claims in the suit were thrown out.

City prosecutors were not immediately available for comment. ACLU attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer declined to comment on the decision.

The trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 17.

JOSEPH SERNA may be reached at (714) 966-4619 or at joseph.serna@latimes.com.