McInnes-Misenor v. Maine Medical Center, No. CIV.01-246-P-C.
| Citation | 211 F.Supp.2d 256 |
| Decision Date | 30 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.01-246-P-C. |
| Parties | Kathryn McINNIS-MISENOR and Brett Misenor, Plaintiffs v. MAINE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Deirdre M. Smith, Drummond, Woodsum & MacMahon, Portland, ME, for Kathryn McInnis-Misenor, Brett Misenor, plaintiffs.
Margaret C. Lepage, Pierce, Atwood, Portland, ME, for Maine Medical Center, defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge having filed with the Court on June 25, 2002, with copies to counsel, his Recommended Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 13); and Plaintiff having filed her objection thereto on July 8, 2002, (Docket No. 14), to which objection Defendant filed its response on July 25, 2002 (Docket No. 15); and this Court having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; and this Court having made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, and concurring with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) Plaintiff's objection is hereby DENIED:
(2) The Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED;
(3) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED;
(4) Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Maine Medical Center ("MMC") moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss Count I of the instant complaint on the basis that Kathryn McInnis-Misenor and her husband, Brett Misenor, who seek pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., to compel MMC to render a birthing center wheelchair-accessible in anticipation of a future pregnancy, lack standing to pursue the relief requested. Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint, etc. ("Motion") (Docket No. 10) at 1; Plaintiff's [sic] First Amended Complaint ("Complaint") (Docket No. 9) ¶¶ 1, 24-29 & p. 7. MMC further urges that the court, upon dismissing Count I, decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Count II, the Misenors' remaining state-law-based claim. Motion at 1; Complaint ¶¶ 30-35. For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the Motion be granted.
"When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), [the court] take[s] the well-pleaded facts as they appear in the complaint, extending [the] plaintiff every reasonable inference in his favor." Pihl v. Massachusetts Dep't of Educ., 9 F.3d 184, 187 (1st Cir.1993). The defendant is entitled to dismissal for failure to state a claim only if "it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be unable to recover under any set of facts." Roma Constr. Co. v. aRusso, 96 F.3d 566, 569 (1st Cir.1996); see also Jackson v. Faber, 834 F.Supp. 471, 473 (D.Me.1993).
Ordinarily, in weighing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "a court may not consider any documents that are outside of the complaint, or not expressly incorporated therein, unless the motion is converted into one for summary judgment." Alternative Energy, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 267 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir.2001). "There is, however, a narrow exception for documents the authenticity of which are not disputed by the parties; for official public records; for documents central to plaintiffs' claim; or for documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, MMC relies in part on facts extracted from a Maine Human Rights Commission investigator's report issued in the instant case, which it characterizes as (i) a document the authenticity of which is not disputed by the parties, (ii) an official public record and (iii) emanating from proceedings that are referred to in the Complaint. Motion at 3 n. 1. The Misenors protest that the document in question is not referenced in the Complaint and is not a public document; however, they do not contest its authenticity. Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint ("Objection") (Docket No. 11) at 2 n. 1. On that basis, the report may be considered without converting the Motion to one for summary judgment.1
For purposes of this Motion I accept the following as true.
MMC is a Maine non-profit corporation that owns and operates a hospital located in Portland, Maine. Complaint ¶ 9. MMC engages in the delivery of health-care services to members of the public, including patients identified as having high-risk pregnancies. Id. The maternity unit at MMC is referred to as the "Family Birth Center." Investigator's Report PA00-0209 ("MHRC Report"), McInnis-Misenor v. Maine Med. Ctr. (Me. Human Rights Comm'n May 22, 2001), attached as Exh. A to Declaration of Margaret Coughlin LePage (Docket No. 3), ¶ IV(1)(b). The "Family Center" (postpartum) and "Birth Center" (labor and delivery) are in separate wings of the Family Birth Center, connected by hallways and a sitting area. Id. Patients giving birth generally are admitted to the MMC Birth Center for labor and delivery. Complaint ¶ 16. If, after delivery, there is a vacancy in the Family Center, patients are usually—but not always —moved there for postpartum recovery. MHRC Report ¶ IV(3)(c).
Kathryn McInnis-Misenor and her husband, Brett Misenor, are residents of Portland. Complaint ¶¶ 5, 7. McInnis-Misenor, who is 42 years old, has juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which affects all of the major joints in her body. Id. ¶ 6. She is unable to walk and uses a wheelchair. Id. She resides in the vicinity of MMC, has received services from it and will have need to use its services again in the future. Id.
The Misenors are presently actively attempting to become pregnant with their second child. Id. ¶ 12. As a result of McInnis-Misenor's age, disability, physical size and pelvis shape, her obstetrician has advised the Misenors that any pregnancy would be considered "high risk." Id. ¶ 13. MMC is the hospital located closest to the Misenors and the only hospital in the Greater Portland area that can accommodate a high-risk delivery. Id. ¶ 14. McInnis-Misenor's obstetrician, who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, can deliver babies only at MMC. Id. Accordingly, MMC is the only facility located in the vicinity of the Misenors' home where McInnis-Misenor can give birth. Id.
The patient rooms and other areas of the Family Center are not accessible to McInnis-Misenor and other people who use wheelchairs because, inter alia, the bathrooms in the those rooms are not large enough to accommodate a wheelchair. Id. ¶ 17. During November 8-15, 1999 McInnis-Misenor was hospitalized at MMC prior to and after the birth of the Misenors' daughter by cesarean section. Id. ¶ 18. In anticipation of the delivery of McInnis-Misenor's first child, MMC spent approximately $5,300 to reconfigure a private room on the Birth Center wing to make it more accessible for her. MHRC Report ¶ IV(5)(b). However, because architectural barriers render the Family Center inaccessible to McInnis-Misenor, she could not be transferred there after her daughter's birth, unlike nondisabled mothers. Complaint ¶ 19. She remained in the Birth Center throughout her weeklong hospitalization. Id.
Prior to and subsequent to McInnis-Misenor's 1999 hospitalization, the Misenors asked MMC to remove the architectural barriers that prevent them from using the Family Center, but MMC has refused to do so. Id. ¶ 20. As a result, the Misenors will have to remain in the Birth Center during any future maternity-related hospitalization at MMC. Id.
"[T]he irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). "First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Id. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. Id.
The instant motion implicates the first prong of this tripartite test. MMC argues, in essence, that for purposes of pursuing prospective (injunctive) relief pursuant to the ADA, the Misenors have suffered no "injury in fact." See, e.g., Motion at 12. I agree.
In Count I of their complaint, the Misenors assert that because they "continue to live near Defendant, plan to have another child and therefore will need to seek services from MMC in the future, there is a real and immediate threat that they will be subjected to violations of their federally-protected civil rights in the absence of injunctive relief." Complaint ¶ 28. They seek modification of the bathroom in a single patient room in the Family Center to permit access and use by a person in a wheelchair. Objection at 7.
MMC views the Misenors' situation quite differently, contending that they would suffer the injury they seek to forestall only upon the happening of a "chain of speculative contingencies"—that "(1) Plaintiff Kathryn McInnis-Misenor in fact became pregnant, (2) she was able to carry the baby to viability, (3) she chose to give...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McInnis-Misenor v. Maine Medical Center
...that the action be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not at present have standing to bring their claims. McInnis-Misenor v. Me. Med. Ctr., 211 F.Supp.2d 256, 257 (D.Me.2002). The district judge agreed and dismissed the action, without prejudice, on July 30, 2002. Plaintiffs Our review of......
-
McCormack v. Hiedeman
...have viewed nonpregnancy as fatal to standing. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 128 (1973). See also McInnes-Misenor v. Maine Medical Center, 211 F.Supp.2d 256, 260 (D.Me. 2002) (collecting cases). Indeed, in McInness-Misenor, the court found that the plaintiffs - a couple actively see......
-
Me. People's Alliance & Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Holtrachem Mfg. Co.
... MAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE and NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, ... all, and perhaps will get worse and spread to "the center of an important commercial lobster fishery." Id . at ......