Havens v. James
| Docket Number | 20-664-cv |
| Decision Date | 04 August 2023 |
| Parties | Jim Havens, Individually and o/b/o ROC Love Will End Abortion, an Unincorporated Association, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Letitia A. James, Attorney General of the State of New York, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, City of Rochester, New York, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2020
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York
In 2005, a federal district court entered a permanent injunction against several pro-life advocates enjoining them from entering the public sidewalk within fifteen feet of the entrance of any abortion clinic in the Western District of New York. Twelve years later, in 2017, Plaintiff-Appellant Jim Havens, who was not a named party to the 2005 permanent injunction, started sidewalk counseling near the Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester, New York. After Defendants-Appellees the New York Attorney General and the City of Rochester decided that Havens was bound by the 2005 permanent injunction, he sued seeking a declaratory judgment that he was not bound by the injunction. He also moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from applying the injunction to his counseling activities. The district court dismissed his suit for failure to state a claim and denied his motion for a preliminary injunction.
We hold that a person who is not a named party to an injunction or legally identified with a named party is bound by the injunction only from acting for the benefit of, or to assist an enjoined party in violating the injunction. The allegations in Havens's complaint do not establish that he so acted and therefore state a claim for declaratory relief. We reverse the judgment of the district court insofar as it dismissed Havens's complaint and vacate the judgment insofar as it denied Havens's motion for a preliminary injunction. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JOHN T. REFERMAT, Refermat Hurwitz Daniel PLLC, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
DUSTIN J. BROCKNER, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Victor Paladino, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia A. James, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Letitia A. James.
SPENCER L. ASH for Timothy R. Curtin, Corporation Counsel of the City of Rochester, Rochester, NY, for Defendant-Appellee City of Rochester.
Before: LOHIER, NARDINI, and MENASHI, Circuit Judges.
In 2005, a federal district court entered a permanent injunction against several pro-life advocates. The "Arcara Injunction," named after the district judge who issued it, enjoined the named defendants from, among other things, entering the public sidewalk within fifteen feet of the entrance of any abortion clinic in the Western District of New York and from aiding and abetting others to do the same.
Twelve years later, in 2017, Plaintiff-Appellant Jim Havens began sidewalk counseling near the Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester, New York.[1] Havens invited others to join him, and they eventually formed an association, ROC Love Will End Abortion ("ROC").[2] Havens, who was neither a party to the Arcara Injunction nor aware of it, did not avoid the fifteen-foot buffer zone defined in the Arcara Injunction. Defendants-Appellees Letitia A. James, the Attorney General of the State of New York, and the City of Rochester, however, informed Havens that he and ROC were prohibited from entering the buffer zone because he and his group were acting in concert with defendants named in the Arcara Injunction.
To clarify his rights and to avoid arrest, Havens sued the Attorney General and the City, seeking a declaration that he and his group were not subject to the Arcara Injunction. He also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from enforcing the injunction against him and his group. Havens now appeals the district court's dismissal of his suit for failure to state a claim, its denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction, and its decision to dismiss his complaint with prejudice without granting him leave to amend.
We hold that a person who is not a named party to an injunction and who is not legally identified with such a party is bound by the injunction only from acting for the benefit of, or to assist, a named party in violating the injunction. According to the allegations in his complaint, Havens did not so act. The complaint therefore states a claim for the declaratory relief Havens seeks. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal of Havens's complaint. We vacate the district court's denial of Havens's motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
After a twenty-three-day hearing, the district court determined that the defendants had likely violated FACE by "threatening violence, engaging in minor acts of violence, and imposing a 'constructive obstruction' that amounted to physical obstruction." Operation Rescue Nat'l, 273 F.3d at 192. The district court issued a preliminary injunction in 2002, which was converted into a permanent injunction in 2005. [3] The Arcara Injunction enjoined conduct beyond what FACE prohibits: it enjoined the defendants from "being present within fifteen feet of either edge of any doorway, walkway or driveway entrance to any" abortion facility and from "inducing, directing, aiding or abetting in any manner, others to take any of the actions described" in the injunction. App'x 21-22. The injunction listed the parties it bound, including Mary Melfi (now Mary Jost), Michael McBride, Robert Pokalsky, and Rescue Rochester, an organization led by Michael Warren.
In 2017, Havens started to sidewalk counsel and pray outside Planned Parenthood of Rochester. Havens invited others to join him, and they eventually formed ROC. Using materials that he acquired from Sidewalk Advocates for Life, a national sidewalk counseling support group, Havens offered training sessions to people interested in sidewalk counseling. The training described non-violent and non-confrontational methods of initiating conversations with women to discuss options other than abortion. Some of the training sessions were held at Focus Pregnancy Help Center, a pregnancy center with which Jost is associated.[4]
In the latter part of 2017, security guards at Planned Parenthood of Rochester told Havens that the Arcara Injunction required him-and anyone with him-to observe a fifteen-foot buffer zone on the public sidewalk. Havens, who was not a party to the injunction and had not been aware of it, reviewed the terms of the injunction. He disagreed with the security guards' assessment and continued his sidewalk counseling activities.
On several occasions in 2017 and 2018, Planned Parenthood of Rochester security guards called the Rochester Police Department to complain that Havens was violating the fifteen-foot buffer zone imposed by the Arcara Injunction. The Rochester Police, after visiting the location and consulting Havens, agreed with Havens that he and those with him were not bound by the Arcara Injunction. But in June 2018, the Rochester Police Department reversed its position and insisted that Havens and ROC were bound by the Arcara Injunction. The police "verbally informed" Havens that he and his group had to comply with the fifteen-foot buffer zone. App'x 6.[5] Havens and ROC followed the directive despite its adverse impact on their ability to engage in sidewalk counseling.
Havens's lawyers wrote to the City of Rochester to explain their view that Havens and ROC were not bound by the Arcara Injunction. On September 6, 2018, the City responded by letter that Havens and ROC were not bound by the injunction "[s]o long as police do not have reason to believe that Mr. Havens and his organization are acting in concert with any named defendants." App'x 11.
Any reprieve that letter afforded was short-lived. Two weeks later, in a joint letter to Havens, the City and the Attorney General stated that they had reviewed evidence that Havens and ROC were acting in concert with defendants named in the Arcara Injunction and accordingly needed to remain outside the buffer zone. The letter did not identify the named parties with whom Havens and ROC were purportedly acting in concert or describe the evidence that the City and the Attorney General had reviewed.
Havens's lawyers requested additional information. The Attorney General responded by letter, stating that certain evidence established that Havens and ROC coordinated their activities with Jost and Rescue Rochester, two defendants named in the Arcara Injunction. The Attorney General did not explain how Havens and ROC had acted in concert with Jost and Rescue...
To continue reading
Request your trial