Miller v. Davis

• Citation: 267 F.Supp.3d 961
• Decision Date: 21 July 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 15–44–DLB
• Parties: April MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs v. Kim DAVIS, individually and in her official capacity, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky

267 F.Supp.3d 961

April MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs

v.Kim DAVIS, individually and in her official capacity, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15–44–DLB

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division. at Ashland.

Signed July 21, 2017

Daniel J. Canon, Laura E. Landenwich, Clay Daniel Walton & Adams, PLC, Leonard Joe Dunman, Attorney at Law, William Ellis Sharp, ACLU of Kentucky, Amy Denise Cubbage, Ackerson & Yann, PLLC, Louisville, KY, Daniel I. Mach, Heather L. Weaver, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, DC, James D. Esseks, ACLU Foundation, Ria Tabacco Mar, American Civil Liberties Union–National Headquarters, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Anthony Charles Donahue, Donahue Law Group, P.S.C., Somerset, KY, Horatio G. Mihet, Roger K. Gannam, Liberty Counsel, Orlando, FL, Cecil R. Watkins, Rowan County Attorney, Morehead, KY, Claire E. Parsons, Jeffrey C. Mando, Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC, Covington, KY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

David L. Bunning, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In the summer of 2015, the Supreme Court put the national debate concerning same-sex marriage to bed. The Court determined that same-sex couples need not "await further legislation, litigation, and debate," and held that the Constitution's fundamental right to marry extended to same-sex couples. Obergefell v. Hodges , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 2605, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015). The dissenting justices warned that there would be "consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance." Id. at 2625 (Roberts, J., dissenting). At least in some respects, the dissenting justices' concerns proved correct. Obergefell's watershed decision floated downstream to district courts, including this one.

Less than one week after the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell , the instant case landed on the Court's docket when Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk, refused to issue marriage licenses. This litigation has produced many appeals, a jailing for contempt, at least two marriages, and legislative action. Now, this protracted case has boiled down to a single remaining issue: attorneys' fees.

Pursuant to this Court's September 21, 2016 Order (Doc. # 184), Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Doc. # 183) was referred to Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins for a Report and Recommendation ("R & R"). Judge Atkins recommended that the Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. (Doc. # 199). The Plaintiffs having objected to the R & R (Doc. # 201), the Defendants having filed their Responses (Docs. # 203 and 204), and the Plaintiffs having filed a Reply (Doc. # 205), the R & R is ripe for review. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs' Objections are sustained , the R & R is rejected as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is granted as set forth herein.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Obergefell , reaffirming that the right to marry is a fundamental right under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and holding that same-sex couples may not be deprived of that right. Obergefell , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609. Accordingly, Kentucky's constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated the Constitution, and Kentucky could no longer "exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples." Id. at 2605.

Just hours after the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell , Defendant Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk, unilaterally decided that her office would no longer issue marriage licenses to any couples, same-sex or otherwise. (Doc. # 43 at 1). That same day, Plaintiffs April Miller and Karen Roberts, who had been in a committed same-sex relationship for eleven years, decided to get married. (Doc. # 21 at 25). Four days later, Ms. Miller and Ms. Roberts went to the Rowan County Clerk's Office and requested a marriage license. Id. at 26. The couple's request was denied and they were informed of the Rowan County Clerk's "no marriage license" policy. Id. Two opposite-sex couples—Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez and Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier—as well as another same-sex couple—Barry Spartman and Aaron Skaggs—claimed to have suffered a similar fate when they requested marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk's Office. Id. at 36, 42–44.

On July 2, 2015, Plaintiffs April Miller, Karen Roberts, Shantel Burke, Stephen Napier, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, Aaron Skaggs, and Barry Spartman (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a civil-rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Rowan County, Kentucky and Kim Davis, individually and in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk (collectively "Defendants"). (Doc. # 1). Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. # 2). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs claimed their constitutional rights were violated by the Rowan County Clerk's "no marriage license" policy, which refused marriage licenses to couples who were otherwise legally entitled to marry. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and requested seven specific types of relief: (1) class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, (2) a preliminary injunction, (3) a permanent injunction, (4) a declaratory judgment, (5) damages, (6) attorneys' fees and costs, and (7) a trial by jury. (Doc. # 1 at pp. 10–14).

In response, Davis filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. # 32), opposed Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 29), and filed a Third–Party Complaint (Doc. # 34) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 39) against then–Governor of Kentucky, Steven Beshear, and the Commissioner of the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives, Wayne Onkst¹ (collectively "the State Defendants").² In her Third–Party Complaint, Davis claimed that the "Commonwealth of Kentucky, acting through Governor Beshear, deprived [her] of her religious conscience rights guaranteed by the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and laws, by insisting that [she] issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples contrary to her ... sincerely held religious beliefs." (Doc. # 34 at ¶ 1). Davis further claimed that Governor Beshear was "not only liable to Davis for Plaintiffs' claims," but "also obligated to effect Kentucky marriage licensing policies that uphold Davis's rights of religious conscience." Id.

On August 12, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2), and preliminarily enjoined Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, from applying her "no marriage licenses" policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs. (Doc. # 43). Davis appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Docs. # 66, 82, and 83). The Sixth Circuit denied Davis's request to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal and held that "[i]n light of the binding holding of Obergefell , it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk's Office ... may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court." Miller v. Davis , No. 15-5880, 2015 WL 10692640, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 26, 2015) (Doc. # 28–1 therein). Davis further appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which also denied her application for stay. Davis v. Miller , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 23, 192 L.Ed.2d 994 (2015).

Despite this Court's directive and her failed appeals, Davis refused to comply with the Court's Order. (Doc. # 67). Therefore, the Court ordered Davis, as well as her deputy clerks,³ to appear for a contempt hearing. (Doc. # 69). On September 3, 2015, the Court found Davis to be in contempt of the Court's Order and remanded her to the custody of the United States Marshal pending compliance. (Doc. # 75). That same day, the Court modified the preliminary injunction and clarified that Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, was "preliminarily enjoined from applying her 'no marriage licenses' policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs or by other individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky. " (Doc. # 74) (emphasis added).⁴

Five days later, on September 8, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a Status Report indicating that they had obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk's Office without incident. (Doc. # 84). Accordingly, the Court lifted the contempt sanction, released Davis from custody, and ordered her not to interfere with her deputy clerks' efforts to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. (Doc. # 89). On September 14, 2015, Davis returned to work at the Rowan County Clerk's Office. (Doc. # 120). However, the Court continued to monitor compliance with its Orders and required the deputy clerks to file Status Reports regarding their compliance and the issuance of marriage licenses. (Doc. # 89) (requiring Status Reports every fourteen days); (Doc. # 130) (limiting required Status Reports to every thirty days); (Doc. # 163) (requiring Status Reports every ninety days).

While multiple appeals were pending before the Sixth Circuit, the Kentucky General Assembly passed Senate Bill 216,⁵ which removed county clerks' names from the prescribed marriage license forms. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100.⁶ Because the parties agreed that the change in the law rendered the consolidated appeals⁷ moot, the Sixth Circuit granted Davis's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals.⁸ (Doc. # 179). In its July 13, 2016 Order, the Sixth Circuit remanded the...