Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Cobb

• Decision Date: 21 March 2008
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2:03cv1225-MHT.
• Citation: 567 F.Supp.2d 1333
• Parties: AUBURN MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. Sue Bell COBB, in her official capacity as Chief Justice, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

567 F.Supp.2d 1333

AUBURN MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. Sue Bell COBB, in her official capacity as Chief Justice, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:03cv1225-MHT.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

March 21, 2008.

Alvin T. Prestwood, Prestwood & Associates PC, Hugh V. Smith, Jr., P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.

Jeffery Harris Long, Office of the Attorney General, Mark Douglas Wilkerson, Wilkerson & Bryan PC, Patricia Elaine Ivie, Alabama Department of Public Health, James Flynn Mozingo, Melton Espy & Williams, PC, James Eugene Williams, Melton Espy & Williams, PC, Roy Wylie Granger, III, Office of the Secretary of State Legal, David R. Boyd, Balch & Bingham, JoClaudia Moore, Robin Garrett Laurie, Balch & Bingham, LLP Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.

OPINION

MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.

This case is a recent chapter in a long-standing dispute between plaintiff Auburn Medical Center, Inc., (AMC) and defendant East Alabama Health Care Authority, doing business as East Alabama Medical Center (EAMC), over which entity should receive a certificate of need (CON), which is defined under Alabama law as "A permit ... before which no person, except as exempted by statute, shall ... construct ... a new institutional health service or acquire major medical equipment." Rule 410-1-2-.19, Ala. Admin. Code. In addition to EAMC, AMC has named a host of additional defendants, most of whom are state officials. AMC brings claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and under Alabama state law. AMC has invoked the court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental).

This cause is now before the court on the defendants' motions to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the motions will be granted.

I. MOTION-TO-DISMISS STANDARD

In considering a defendant's motion to dismiss, the court accepts the plaintiffs allegations as true, Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984), and construes the complaint in the plaintiffs favor. Duke v. Cleland, 5 F.3d 1399, 1402 (11th Cir.1993). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), "only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

An exhaustive recitation of the background and past procedural history of the longstanding dispute between AMC and EAMC leading up to the current lawsuit can be found in the Alabama appellate decision of Auburn Medical Center v. East Alabama Health Care Authority, 847 So.2d 942 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). This court here gives only an overview as background.

A. First Federal Lawsuit

In the 1980s, AMC and EAMC filed competing applications for a CON with the Alabama State Health Planning and Development Agency (SHPDA). AMC sought approval for the construction and operation a 64-bed hospital in Auburn, Alabama, while EAMC sought approval for a 54-bed extension to its existing facilities in Auburn. SHPDA approved AMC's application for a CON, then later reversed its decision; SHPDA also denied EAMC's application. AMC sued SHPDA in federal court for conspiring to deprive it of its CON. The federal court found in favor of AMC and ordered SHPDA to award the CON to AMC.

In the 1990s, AMC informed SHPDA that it had a contract for the construction of the hospital in compliance with SHPDA Rules and Regulations. SHPDA advised AMC that the construction contract met its requirements. EAMC, through one of its partners, applied for a CON to construct and operate an ambulatory surgery center in Auburn. SHPDA denied EAMC's application because AMC already had a CON to construct and operate.

B. State-Court Lawsuit

In 1997, EAMC filed suit in state court against SHPDA and AMC. The suit sought, among other things, a declaration that AMC's CON was invalid because AMC had not begun construction within the time required by law. The state court held that AMC's CON was invalid. AMC appealed, and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed and held that the AMC CON was valid. Auburn Med. Ctr. v. E. Alabama Health Care Auth., 847 So.2d 942 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). EAMC then appealed, and the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and held that AMC's CON was invalid. Ex parte E. Alabama Health Care Auth., 847 So.2d 951 (Ala.2002).

C. Current Federal Lawsuit

AMC then filed the instant federal lawsuit in 2003. AMC named a number of state justices and judges as defendants: the Chief Justice and all Associate Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court; several Alabama appellate court judges; and the Alabama trial-court judge that ruled against AMC. In addition to these judicial defendants, AMC named the following as defendants: EAMC and its Chief Executive Officer; the Alabama Secretary of State; the Alabama State Health Officer; the Director of SHPDA; and the Progress Political Action Committee (Progress PAC) and its Chair. All individual defendants, except the Chair of the Progress Political Action Committee and the Chief Executive Officer of EAMC, are sued in their official capacities only.

AMC charges that, over the course of the adjudication of its dispute with EAMC in the Alabama state courts, the defendants acted in concert to deprive AMC of its Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive-due-process rights as well as its rights under the Alabama Constitution. AMC also charges that, in violation`of its First Amendment rights to free expression and association,`the defendants retaliated against if for refraining or`abstaining from making political campaign contributions to the judges named as defendants. Finally, AMC seeks a declaration that the judges named as defendants failed to disclose campaign contributions in violation of state law.

AMC has stated these various claims in terms of five separate counts: Count I: AMC charges that, in granting summary judgment for EAMC and finding AMC's CON invalid, the state trial-court judge deprived AMC of its right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitution of Alabama because she failed to provide AMC with adequate notice of her intention to rule on the issue of the validity of AMC's CON. Count II: AMC charges that, in violation of its Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process, the state justices and judges who considered the challenge to AMC's CON were improperly influenced and biased, or had the appearance of being so, because they had received large campaign contributions from EAMC and its Chief Executive Officer and Progress PAC and its Chair. AMC also charges that, by making campaign contributions, EAMC and its Chief Executive Officer and Progress PAC and its Chair acted in concert with these justices and judges to create the bias or the appearance of bias, in violation of AMC's right to procedural due process. Count III: AMC charges that the justices and judges, in violation of AMC's right to substantive due process of law, entered judgments, decisions, and decrees that departed so far from the established law regarding decisions of administrative agencies as to amount to actions that were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. Count IV: AMC charges that, by receiving large campaign contributions from EAMC and its CEO, Progress PAC and its Chair, and others, the state justices and judges placed AMC in the position of needing to make similar contributions in order to receive unbiased judicial consideration and thus the justices and judges violated AMC's First Amendment right to refrain or abstain from making political contributions without retaliation. Count V: AMC charges that the justices and judges, with the exception of one Associate Justice, violated state law by failing to disclose their campaign contributions.

Although phrased in different ways, AMC proposes the following remedies for the claimed violations of federal law: This federal court should enter a declaration that the defendants violated federal law and that AMC's CON is valid and has remained valid throughout all of the prior state-court and administrative proceedings; this court should set aside all state-court decisions finding against AMC and enjoin all defendants from interfering with AMC's exercise of its rights under its CON and, in particular, its rights to construct and operate a hospital; and, finally, this court should award compensatory and punitive damages to AMC for the defendants' violation of its federal rights. Again although phrased in different ways, AMC proposes the following remedies for the claimed violations of state law: This court should enter a declaration that the defendants violated state law and should award the same relief requested for the violation of federal law, along with an injunction, based on the affirmative requirements of state law, directing all the sued state justices and judges, and their successors in office, to divulge to all litigants appearing before them, all political contributions to their respective election campaigns that may create an appearance of bias or impropriety as to the issues placed, or to be placed, before them.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Rooker-Feldman

The defendants contend that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over AMC's lawsuit. See Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). "The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases...