JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Two animal welfare advocates have filed a federal lawsuit accusing the City of Jacksonville and Animal Care and Protective Services Chief Michael Bricker of violating their First Amendment rights, failing to comply with a settlement agreement that resolved an earlier federal case and unlawfully imposing blanket fees for certain public records.
According to a copy of the complaint obtained by HomeFetch, the complaint, filed Aug. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, names Bricker in his official capacity and the City of Jacksonville as defendants. Plaintiffs Emily Cargill and Alison Franciscus are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, enforcement of the prior settlement agreement and attorney’s fees, but are not seeking money damages.
The City of Jacksonville declined to comment on the pending litigation.
The lawsuit centers on three primary issues: allegations that Bricker unlawfully censored critics on Facebook, that the City failed to implement policy changes required under a 2025 settlement agreement and that Jacksonville violated Florida’s public records law through its handling of certain email requests.
The lawsuit alleges Bricker, as chief of ACPS, used both an ACPS-administered Facebook page and his personal Facebook account to communicate official agency business while deleting comments and blocking individuals because of their viewpoints. According to the complaint, those actions violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights because they involved discussion of official government business in what the lawsuit characterizes as a public forum.
One of those claims involves Cargill, an ACPS foster volunteer.
According to the complaint, Cargill fostered a dog named Lou before the dog died following a medical emergency in July. The lawsuit alleges Cargill later posted on the ACPS Foster Communication Page seeking a discussion about the circumstances surrounding the dog’s death and emergency procedures. It alleges Bricker deleted those posts and blocked her from accessing the page.
The complaint further alleges Bricker later blocked Cargill from his personal Facebook page after she responded to the comments he made there regarding Lou’s death. It also alleges Franciscus had previously been blocked from viewing or commenting on Bricker’s Facebook posts concerning ACPS operations.
The lawsuit contends Bricker’s actions constituted viewpoint discrimination because the plaintiffs were allegedly blocked after criticizing ACPS policies and operations.
The lawsuit also seeks enforcement of a settlement agreement that resolved Franciscus’ previous federal lawsuit against the City.
According to the complaint, the parties settled that case in May 2025 after the City agreed to implement several policy changes at ACPS, including revising its volunteer handbook, publishing monthly euthanasia information, making rescue organizations aware they could receive notifications about animals at risk of euthanasia and sending weekly emails identifying animals needing urgent placement.
The new lawsuit alleges those changes were never fully implemented.
Among other allegations, the complaint contends public records requests seeking emails required under the settlement produced few or no responsive records and alleges animals were euthanized without the weekly notifications contemplated by the agreement. The filing cites internal ACPS communications regarding dogs discussed for euthanasia as an example supporting those claims.
The lawsuit includes correspondence exchanged between the parties following the settlement.
In an August 2025 response included as an exhibit, the City’s Office of General Counsel disputed allegations that ACPS had violated the agreement, stating the agency had updated its volunteer handbook, made information available to rescue organizations and was sending weekly emails regarding at-risk animals. The City also stated it had removed social media posts referenced by the plaintiffs’ counsel and concluded at the time that ACPS was complying with the settlement agreement.
The lawsuit also challenges the City’s public records practices.
Franciscus alleges Jacksonville improperly required requesters to approve search terms before conducting email searches and imposed a blanket $45 “system resource charge” for email requests regardless of whether the request required extensive use of technology resources, as contemplated under Florida’s public records law.
The complaint argues those practices unlawfully shift responsibility for locating responsive records to the requester and improperly condition access to public records on payment of an unauthorized fee.
In a statement to HomeFetch, plaintiffs’ attorney Marcy LaHart said the lawsuit was filed because she believes the City has failed to implement the policy changes required under the 2025 settlement agreement.
“Under the settlement agreement that was supposed to resolve the first lawsuit, the City is required to send out weekly emails regarding animals that were in danger of destruction due to behavioral or medical issues,” LaHart said. “That is not being done.”
LaHart said her clients are seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement, an injunction prohibiting viewpoint-based blocking on social media and changes to the City’s public records practices.
“This suit is about accountability and transparency,” she said.
The bottom line that should be the main concern is the treatment of staff and the level of care for the animals. He needs to be fired ASAP!