Bryant v. Woodall
| Decision Date | 24 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | 1:16cv1368 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | AMY BRYANT, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. JIM WOODALL, et al., Defendants. |
On behalf of themselves and their patients seeking abortions, Amy Bryant, M.D., Beverly Gray, M.D., Elizabeth Deans, M.D., and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") filed a "Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief" (Docket Entry 1) (the "Complaint"), seeking "to challenge the constitutionality of state statutes," specifically, North Carolina General Statute Sections 14-44, 14-45, and 14-45.1 "(collectively the '20-week ban')[, that] ban abortion after the twentieth week of pregnancy" (id., ¶ 1). North Carolina imposed the challenged 20-week ban in May 1973, see, e.g., 1973 N.C. Sess. Laws 1057-58, and Plaintiffs concede that, in its entire forty-five-year existence, "no physician has been prosecuted under [it]" (Docket Entry 66 at 6).1 Nevertheless, Plaintiffs seek both a declaratory judgment holding North Carolina's 20-week ban unconstitutional and apermanent injunction preventing its enforcement against them. (See, e.g., Docket Entry 1, ¶¶ 55, 56.) Because Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this lawsuit, the Court should deny "Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Summary Judgment" (Docket Entry 44) (the "Summary Judgment Motion") and should dismiss this lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny "The Parties' Joint Motion to Strike" (Docket Entry 69) (the "Strike Motion").
On November 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, alleging that:
(Id., ¶ 21.) "The 20-week ban presents physicians with an untenable choice: face criminal prosecution for providing medical care in accordance with their best medical judgment, or refuse to provide the critical care their patients seek." (Id., ¶ 51.) Thus, on the theory that "the 20-week ban is unconstitutional as applied to all women seeking previability abortion after the twentieth week of pregnancy" (id., ¶ 2), "Plaintiffs . . . seek a declaration that the 20-week ban is unconstitutional and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting its enforcement as to previability abortions" (id., ¶ 3).2
Two weeks after filing the Complaint, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. (See Docket Entry 13.) In response, Jim Woodall, Roger Echols, Eleanor E. Greene, M.D., and Rick Brajer (collectively, the "Defendants") requested leave to conduct"limited, expedited discovery" on issues pertinent to Defendants' opposition to the summary judgment motion, including whether "[P]laintiffs have standing." (Docket Entry 21 at 9, 10.) The Court (per the undersigned) granted Defendants' request. (See Docket Entry 31 at 20.)3 Following that limited discovery, Plaintiffs again moved for summary judgment (see Docket Entry 44), which Defendants oppose, in part on grounds that Plaintiffs failed to establish their standing to pursue this lawsuit (see, e.g., Docket Entry 52 at 7-9).4 Plaintiffs dispute that assertion. (See Docket Entry 58 at 2-5.)
In light of its "oblig[ation] to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction," Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977), the Court thereafter ordered supplemental briefing regarding Plaintiffs' standing. (See Docket Entry 65 (the "Order") at 6.) In particular, the Order explained that "a plaintiff 'contesting the constitutionality of a criminal statute' must establish, inter alia, that 'there exists a credible threat ofprosecution thereunder.'" (Id. at 4 (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)).)5 The Order further noted that North Carolina's apparently undeviating history of not "prosecut[ing] any doctor for violating th[e] 20-week ban . . . raises questions regarding the existence of 'a credible threat of prosecution.'" (Id. at 5.) Because the parties' filings did not "address th[at] aspect of the standing analysis" (id. at 6), the Court directed "Plaintiffs [to] file a memorandum of no more than ten pages, exclusive of exhibits, regarding their Article III standing to pursue this lawsuit" (id.). The Court further directed Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' memorandum and permitted Plaintiffs to reply to Defendants' response. (Id.)
In response to the Order, Plaintiffs filed a "Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Summary Judgment" (Docket Entry 66) (the "Standing Brief"). They declined, however, to file any exhibits in support thereof. (See Docket Entries dated May 3, 2018, to present.) Defendants similarly filed a response devoid of exhibits (see Docket Entry 67), and Plaintiffs replied thereto (see Docket Entry 68). Thereafter, the parties jointly moved to strike certain exhibits to Defendants' summary judgment opposition — namely, Plaintiffs'discovery responses — and replace them with redacted versions. (See Docket Entry 69 at 1; see also Docket Entries 69-1 to 69-4.) In support of this request, the parties maintained that the proposed replacement exhibits "(1) redact confidential information not relevant to the arguments before this Court, and (2) contain all information necessary for this Court to make a decision on the merits." (Docket Entry 69 at 1.)
Article III of the Constitution empowers federal courts to decide only "'Cases'" and "'Controversies.'" Ansley v. Warren, 861 F.3d 512, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). "An essential element of this bedrock principle is that any party who invokes the court's authority must establish standing." Id. Generally speaking, to establish "standing, a plaintiff must prove that he has suffered a 'concrete and particularized' injury that is 'fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant' and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Id. As such, "a party's 'keen interest in the issue' is insufficient by itself to meet Article III's [standing] requirements." Id. "Article III's case-or-controversy limitation ensures that federal courts respect 'the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society.'" Id. at 523. In addition, "[w]here state criminal statutes are challenged, the requirement protects federalism by allowing the states to control the application of their own criminal laws." Doe v. Duling, 782 F.2d 1202, 1205 (4th Cir. 1986).
The limitations imposed by Article III on the federal judiciary demand scrupulous adherence, for, as the United States Supreme Court recently explained:
Few exercises of the judicial power are more likely to undermine public confidence in the neutrality and integrity of the Judiciary than one which casts the Court in the role of a Council of Revision, conferring on itself the power to invalidate laws at the behest of anyone who disagrees with them. In an era of frequent litigation, class actions, sweeping injunctions with prospective effect, and continuing jurisdiction to enforce judicial remedies, courts must be more careful to insist on the formal rules of standing, not less so. Making the Article III standing inquiry all the more necessary are the significant implications of constitutional litigation, which can result in rules of wide applicability that are beyond Congress' power to change.
Arizona Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 145-46 (2011). Thus, there exists an "enduring principle that judges must consider jurisdiction as the first order of business," as "[n]othing can justify adjudication of a suit in which the plaintiff lacks standing or there is some other obstacle to justiciability." Sherman v. Community Consol. Sch. Dist. 21 of Wheeling Twp., 980 F.2d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 1992).
"In its constitutional dimension, the standing inquiry asks whether the party before the court has such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation offederal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf." Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 119-20 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original). Accordingly, "the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (emphasis added). Specifically, "[t]he plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial