I don't have the text of the decision; this sumary is via the blog Religion Clause:
Police Can Help Church Eject Trespassing Worshipper
In Ferreira v. Harris, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41734 (ND Okl., June 20, 2006), plaintiff was a dissident member of a Woodland View Jehovah’s Witness Congregation in Tulsa, Oklahoma. After Ferreira claimed that God has selected him as an "other sheep", the church informed Ferreira that he had been disfellowshipped. When Ferreira continued to attend services anyway, first the church asked him to sit in the back of the congregation, and later it asked him to leave. When he refused, the Congregation called Tulsa police who arrested him for trespassing. Ferreira then filed suit in federal court claiming that the city and church officials violated his state and federal constitutional rights. He also claimed that the Oklahoma trespassing laws are unconstitutionally vague and that the city of Tulsa, in violation of the Establishment Clause, had used funds to support a religious group.
The court held that the church autonomy doctrine precludes it from reviewing the church’s decision to shun, and then exclude, Ferreira, since the decision was based on the church’s interpretation of religious doctrines. It went on to hold that governmental enforcement of trespassing statutes did not violate Ferreira’s free exercise rights. The statute is a neutral law of general applicability that protects worshippers from disturbance of the peace and poses only an incidental burden on Ferreira’s exercise of religion.
The court also rejected Ferreira’s Establishment Clause claim—that the city had spent over $19,150 to keep him imprisoned for attempting to attend church services. The trespass laws were not enforced in a manner that favored any particular religion. Finally, the court also rejected Ferreira’s vagueness claims as well as his civil rights conspiracy claims under 42 USC Section 1985.
While Ferreira's disfellowshipping and treatment by the Witnesses was obviously wrong, it doesn't appear that his claim had any legal merit, especially not his claim that the police violated his rights by removing him from the Kingdom Hall.