Women's Health Care Services, P.A. v. Operation Rescue, Nat.

Decision Date11 May 1994
Docket NumberNo. 91-3250,91-3250
Citation24 F.3d 107
PartiesWOMEN'S HEALTH CARE SERVICES, P.A.; George R. Tiller, M.D., P.A.; George R. Tiller, Individually; Wichita Family Planning, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. OPERATION RESCUE, NATIONAL, also known as Operation Rescue; Randall Terry; Patrick Mahoney; Keith Tucci; Jim Evans; Joe Slovenec, Defendants-Appellants, and Wendy Wright, Defendant. National Organization for Women, Kansas NOW, the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and the ACLU of Kansas; United States, Amici Curiae.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

John E. Cowles, Wichita, KS, for plaintiffs-appellees Women's Health Care Services, P.A., and George R. Tiller, M.D., P.A.

Jay Alan Sekulow, James M. Henderson, Sr., and Walter M. Weber, Washington, DC, Thomas P. Monaghan, New Hope, KY, and

Richard A. Macias, Wichita, KS, for defendants-appellants.

Rachel Pine of ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, New York City, Jim Lawing, Wichita, KS, Helen Neuborne, Alison Wetherfield, and Burt Neuborne of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York City, E.L. Lee Kinch, Wichita, KS, for amici curiae Nat. Organization for Women, Kansas NOW, the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civ. Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Nat. Abortion Rights Action League and the ACLU of Kansas.

James P. Turner, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David K. Flynn, and William R. Yeomans, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae U.S.

Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and TACHA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is taken from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas entered August 5, 1991, granting a preliminary injunction which enjoined defendants and persons and organizations acting in concert with them from trespassing on, sitting in, or blocking access to any facility at which abortions, family planning, or gynecological services are provided by plaintiffs in Wichita, Kansas, and from harassing or obstructing persons seeking to use those services or persons working at the facilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1). 1

The operative facts underlying the district court's decision, as well as the primary basis for the relief sought, are found at Women's Health Care Services, P.A. v. Operation Rescue-National, 773 F.Supp. 258, 260-63 (D.Kan.1991), and need not be elaborated on here, except as specifically noted.

After this appeal was noticed, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 914 F.2d 582 (4th Cir.1990), cert. granted sub nom. Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 498 U.S. 1119, 111 S.Ct. 1070, 112 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1991), and we then abated this appeal. The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 753, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993), "radically altered" the "judicial landscape of Sec. 1985(3)." Town of West Hartford v. Operation Rescue, 991 F.2d 1039, 1045 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 185, 126 L.Ed.2d 144 (1993). 2

We then directed the parties to brief the effect of Bray on this appeal. 3 Our decision is guided by memorandum briefs filed by the parties, as well as amicus briefs filed by the United States and the National Organization for Women, et al.

To prove a private conspiracy in violation of the first clause of Sec. 1985(3), a plaintiff must show that " 'some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus [lay] behind the conspirators' action' " and that the conspiracy " 'aimed at interfering with rights ... protected against private, as well as official, encroachment.' " Bray, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 758 (citations omitted). The Court found that the record in Bray did not indicate that the Operation Rescue demonstrators were "motivated by a purpose (malevolent or benign) directed specifically at women as a class." Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 759.

The federal claim also failed to support a private conspiracy theory because this requires an intent to deprive persons of a right (such as interstate travel) guaranteed against private impairment. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 762. The Court found there was no intent to infringe on the right of interstate travel. Moreover, while there may have been an intent to interfere with women obtaining abortions, the latter is not a "right protected against private action that has been the object of the alleged conspiracy" under Sec. 1985(3). Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 764.

In dicta, the Court opined that the second clause of Sec. 1985(3), i.e., the "hindrance clause," 4 would not provide a basis for this action, either, because of the lack of a class-based animus and the failure to describe rights protected against official (as opposed to private) encroachment. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 764-67.

Finally, the Court determined that the Sec. 1985(3) claims were not so insubstantial as to deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. In remanding the matter for further proceedings the Court held:

While respondents' Sec. 1985(3) causes of action fail, they were not, prior to our deciding of this case, "wholly insubstantial and frivolous," Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-683, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), so as to deprive the District Court of jurisdiction.

It may be, of course, that even though the District Court had jurisdiction over the state-law claims, judgment on those claims alone cannot support the injunction that was entered. We leave that question for consideration on remand.

Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 768.

In the wake of Bray, numerous courts have redetermined the posture of lawsuits such as this one. See, e.g., National Abortions Fed'n v. Operation Rescue, 8 F.3d 680, 687 (9th Cir.1993) (conspiracy to prevent or hinder state law enforcement officers from securing constitutional right to abortion is actionable under Sec. 1985(3)); New York State Nat'l Organization for Women v. Terry, 996 F.2d 1351, 1352 (2d Cir.1993) (reinstating initial judgment in New York State Nat'l Organization for Women v. Terry, 961 F.2d 390 [2d Cir.1992], vacated and remanded sub nom. Pearson v. Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger Clinic, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1233, 122 L.Ed.2d 640 [1993], and directing that application for relief in light of Bray be addressed by district court in first instance), petition for cert. filed, 62 U.S.L.W. 3396 (U.S. Nov. 22, 1993) (No. 93-828); Town of West Hartford v. Operation Rescue, 991 F.2d at 1048 (case remanded to district court to conduct "assessment of the animus aspect of the case at bar ... in the light of the legal principles relating to animus announced in Bray, of the record evidence bearing on appellants' motivation"); People ex rel. Abrams v. Operation Rescue Nat'l, 1994 WL 23118, at * 1, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 485, at * 2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 1994) (denying motion to vacate or modify preliminary injunction on ground injunctive relief not available under Sec. 1985(3) and declining suggestion court not exercise pendent jurisdiction over state law claims); Pro-Choice Network v. Project Rescue, 828 F.Supp. 1018, 1025-27 (W.D.N.Y.1993) (allowing plaintiffs opportunity to file amended Sec. 1985(3) cause of action; declining to vacate preliminary injunction; continuing to exercise pendent jurisdiction over state claims); Cooley v. Arena, 1993 WL 463760, at * 3, 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 16069, at * 11 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 1993) (even after Bray defendants could properly be held in contempt for violating injunction, where injunction still valid insofar as premised on state law); Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood v. Doe, 836 F.Supp. 939, 949, 955, 958 (N.D.N.Y.1993) (Sec. 1985(3) prevention claim would require same showing of class-based animus as does deprivation claim; declining to allow further opportunity to amend complaint; continuing to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims).

In this case, the district court clearly premised its grant of injunctive relief on both the federal and state claims.

Even if the federal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • U.S. v. Dinwiddie
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • May 9, 1996
    ... ... of a facility that provides reproductive-health services. See United States v. Dinwiddie, 885 ... were from outside Maryland); Women's Health Care Services v. Operation Rescue, 773 F.Supp. 258, ... ...
  • Dababnah v. West Virginia Bd. of Medicine
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • May 11, 1999
    ...to § 1985(3)." Women's Health Care Servs. v. Operation Rescue-National, 773 F.Supp. 258, 267 (D.Kan.1991), rev'd on other grounds, 24 F.3d 107 (10th Cir. 1994), (citing Action v. Gannon, 450 F.2d 1227 (8th Cir.1971); Mizell v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 427 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1970); Brewer ......
  • Oltremari v. Kansas Social & Rehabilitative Service
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • November 21, 1994
    ... ... Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services (SRS) (Doc. # 23); ... 10. Motion to Dismiss by ... and applied them to this case with care. The court is aware of no reason why the report ... at 2846-47 (quoting Gully v. First Nat'l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 112, 57 S.Ct ... actionable under § 1985(3)." 6 Women's Health Care Servs., P.A. v. Operation Rescue-National, ... v. Harris, 695 F.Supp. 827, 829 (E.D.Pa.1988) ...         Plaintiff has shown ... ...
  • U.S. v. Wilson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • February 21, 1996
    ... ... of facilities providing reproductive health services. The district ... Page 677 ... entrances of the Wisconsin Women's Health Care Center located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A ... for Women v. Operation Rescue, 726 F.Supp. 1483, 1489 (E.D.Va.1989) ... history omitted); see also New York State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1360 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT