William Paulson Files Second Federal Lawsuit Against Springfield City

William Paulson of Springfield, South Dakota, filed a second federal lawsuit on Oct. 1 against the city, Mayor Scott Kostal, and four Common Council members, alleging viewpoint discrimination, retaliation, and selective enforcement of property rules in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, mitchellrepublic.com reported.

The new legal filing asks a federal court for $7 million in damages, a jury trial, and specific injunctions to halt what Paulson describes as unconstitutional restrictions on public participation. The named defendants include council members Steve Mueller, Cheryl Ludens, Larry Dietsch, and Katelyn Burch.

The Escalation at Richey Park and Paulson Park

At the core of the second lawsuit are disputes over municipal public-comment procedures and local property oversight, specifically concerning Richey Park and Paulson Park. These locations house recreational vehicles where residents—including Native Americans, veterans, senior citizens, people with traumatic brain injuries, and people with disabilities—make their homes.

“If there is any messaging I want to get out on this one is the mayor’s continued push of Richey Park,” Paulson said.

The friction intensified on Aug. 3, when Paulson informed Kostal that he intended to place a camper at Richey Park bearing a message critical of the mayor. Later that same day, Kostal described the camper’s intended purpose as unacceptable during a council meeting. Meanwhile, Mueller raised the possibility of enforcement involving occupied campers at Paulson Park.

Paulson stated that Mueller’s remarks on potential enforcement at Paulson Park were the tipping point. “That’s what set me over the edge on this one,” he noted, emphasizing the residents living there.

Public Comment Restrictions and Prior Legal Battles

The federal complaint argues that city officials applied public-comment guidelines inconsistently across multiple council meetings held in 2025 and 2026. According to the court filing, residents were interrupted when raising concerns about municipal actions or financial burdens, while other speakers continued.

This latest action builds upon an earlier lawsuit Paulson filed in January against the city, the mayor, and local officials, which centered on property and whistleblower-retaliation claims. Paulson reported that roughly 36 hours after serving the defendants with that initial complaint, a police officer served him with a municipal nuisance notice, prompting him to amend his first filing.

The city’s attorney has since submitted a joint motion seeking the dismissal of the January lawsuit, a matter that remains pending before the court.

William Paulson Files Second Federal Lawsuit Against Springfield City

Defense Responses and Pending Municipal Elections

In a joint answer filed in the federal case, the defendants firmly denied violating Paulson’s constitutional rights or engaging in retaliatory behavior against him or his properties. They also disputed that the message Paulson planned to display on his camper qualified as protected political speech.

While the defendants acknowledged that the city previously restricted public comments to non-agenda items before later updating the policy to cover both agenda and non-agenda items, they denied that Paulson was ever barred from criticizing city officials or discussing municipal issues. City officials maintained that citizens were encouraged to avoid personal attacks.

The defendants have asserted several legal defenses, including qualified immunity for individual officials, and requested that the federal complaint be dismissed with prejudice. They also rejected claims of unequal enforcement, arguing the plaintiff’s allegations do not establish that the city treated his properties differently in violation of the law.

Paulson’s second complaint incorporates nearly 50 supporting exhibits, featuring recordings of council meetings, photographs, city records, and written communications. The litigation unfolds as Springfield prepares for municipal elections that could bring changes to the Common Council. Three council members did not seek reelection, another has one year remaining in the term, and Kostal faces two challengers for mayor.