Havens v. James
| Docket Number | 20-664-cv,August Term 2020 |
| Decision Date | 04 August 2023 |
| Citation | 76 F.4th 103 |
| 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 |
76 F.4th 103
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.
No. 20-664-cv
August Term 2020
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Argued: September 29, 2020
Decided: August 4, 2023
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York
Thomas G. Olp, Thomas More Society, Chicago, IL (John T. Refermat, Refermat Hurwitz & Daniel PLLC, Rochester, NY, on the brief), 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.
Judge Lohier dissents in a separate opinion.
Menashi, Circuit Judge:
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.
In 1999, the State of New York, along with Planned Parenthood of Rochester and other abortion providers, sought injunctive relief regulating the conduct of pro-life advocates outside of abortion clinics in the Western District of New York. New York ex rel. Spitzer v. Operation Rescue Nat'l, 273 F.3d 184, 191-92 (2d Cir. 2001). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 ("FACE"), which makes it unlawful for anyone who
by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.
18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1).
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 Rochester or identify the evidence that the Attorney General had reviewed.
Havens alleges that a news reporter provided him with the evidence on which the City and the Attorney General relied. That evidence included (1) Facebook posts by Rescue Rochester and by Havens that promoted training sessions at Focus Pregnancy Help Center and (2) a mailing from Rescue Rochester and a website post by Focus Pregnancy Help Center that encouraged participation in Havens's and ROC's monthly sidewalk counseling outside Planned Parenthood of Rochester.
Havens also alleges that McBride, Pokalsky, and Warren engaged in sidewalk counseling at Planned Parenthood of Rochester. According to his complaint, Havens consulted with counsel and then informed the three individuals that, as named parties to the injunction, they must avoid entering the buffer zone.
On July 2, 2019, Havens, individually and on behalf of ROC, sued the Attorney General and the City. Havens sought a declaration that the Arcara Injunction does not bind him, ROC, or its members and an order enjoining the defendants from enforcing the injunction against them.6 At the same time, Havens moved for a preliminary injunction. The defendants each opposed the motion and moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, denied Havens's motion for a preliminary injunction, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The district court concluded that Havens, although not a party to the Arcara Injunction, gave "benefit[ ]" to...
To continue reading
Request your trial