Because he did not renew his permit, Barilla has stopped busking. Barilla avers that but for the Busking Ordinances, he would busk again in Houston. Barilla filed the instant lawsuit against the City on January 15, 2020, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint alleges that the Busking Ordinances violate the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. He requests a judgment declaring the Busking Ordinances unconstitutional, facially and as applied to Barilla; a permanent injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing the Busking Ordinances; $1 in nominal damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. The City moved to dismiss on February 21, 2020, under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting that Barilla lacked standing, that his complaint failed to state a claim, and that his action was barred by the statute of limitations. On June 16, 2020, the district court granted the City's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Barilla v. City of Houston, No. 4:20-CV-0145, , 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193053 (S.D. Tex. June 16, 2020). The district court concluded that Barilla's complaint failed to allege an injury sufficient to confer standing, emphasizing that Barilla had not been cited for violating the Busking Ordinances nor threatened with a citation, nor had he been arrested or shown that he was in immediate danger of arrest.
Id. at *2-3, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193053 at *5–7. Barilla filed a motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, for leave to amend his complaint, which the district court denied on September 11, 2020. Barilla timely appealed.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 4(a)(4)(A)(iv);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). He appeals the district court's orders (1) granting the City's motion to dismiss and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration or leave to amend.