West Alabama Women's Center et al v. Miller
Filing
30
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/31/2015. (kh, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
WEST ALABAMA WOMEN’S
)
CENTER and WILLIAM J.
)
PARKER, M.D., on behalf of )
themselves and their
)
patients,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
DONALD E. WILLIAMSON,
)
M.D., in his official
)
capacity as State Health
)
Officer,
)
)
Defendant.
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv497-MHT
(WO)
OPINION
On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs West Alabama Women’s
Center
(a
licensed
abortion
clinic
in
Tuscaloosa,
Alabama) and Dr. William J. Parker (the Center’s sole
doctor) filed a constitutional as-applied challenge to
a
state
regulation.
The
regulation,
Alabama
Administrative Code § 420-5-1-.03(6)(b), requires that,
in order for a facility to provide abortion services,
either
the
doctor
who
performs
abortions
must
have
‘admitting
privileges’
at
a
local
hospital,
or
the
facility must contract with a ‘covering physician’ who
has those privileges.
Williamson,
in
his
The defendant is Dr. Donald E.
official
capacity
as
the
State
Health Officer.
This matter is now before the court on the parties’
joint request to stay proceedings for a period of one
year.
For reasons that follow, the request will be
granted.
I.
The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their
patients,
claim
that
the
challenged
regulation
is
unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth
§ 1983
and
Amendment,
as
applied
as
enforced
to
them,
through
because
42
it
U.S.C.
violates
their patients’ rights to liberty and privacy and their
right
to
pursue
their
business
and
profession.
Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights).
2
With the filing of their July 10 complaint, the
plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and
a
preliminary
regulation.
enjoined
injunction
On
against
August
enforcement
4,
with
the
the
enforcement
court
the
temporarily
understanding
supporting opinion would follow.
of
that
a
W. Alabama Women’s
Ctr. v. Williamson, 2015 WL 4932810 (M.D. Ala. 2015)
(Thompson, J.).
On August 13, the court issued the
promised opinion, finding, among other things, that,
“the plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of
success
on
the
merits,”
W.
Alabama
Women’s
Ctr.
v.
Williamson, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, ----, 2015 WL 4873125
at * 17 (M.D. Ala. 2015) (Thompson, J.), and “that the
Center will shut down permanently if as-applied relief
is
not
abortion
granted,
in
eliminating
Tuscaloosa
and
the
ability
to
drastically
get
an
reducing
capacity throughout the State.” Id. at * 20.
And, on
August
of
17,
the
court,
with
the
agreement
the
parties, extended the temporary restraining order until
September 1.
3
As stated, now before the court is the parties’
request to stay this litigation.
The request is based
on
among
a
stipulation
that
provides,
other
things,
that the State Health Officer has granted to the Center
a waiver from the regulation for a period of one year;
that
the
“policies
plaintiffs
and
connection
shall
protocols”
with
their
continue
to
abide
submitted
to
the
motion
for
a
by
court
the
in
temporary
restraining order, Stipulation (doc. no. 29) at 1; that
the plaintiffs shall continue to make “reasonable, good
faith efforts to comply with the Regulation ... as set
forth in the Court’s August 13 Opinion,” id.; and that
the Alabama Department of Public Health shall initiate
“the rulemaking process ... to modify the Regulation so
that it will meet [the department]’s goal of ensuring
the health and safety of patients without creating an
undue
burden
Opinion.”
as
discussed
in
the
Court’s
August
13
Id. at 1-2.
In addition, because the parties expressly stated
on the record on August 26 that they do not view the
4
stipulation as a “settlement,” they may each still move
to lift the stay or jointly move to have its terms
modified at any time, and the court may likewise lift
the stay at any time.
Also, the plaintiffs may still
seek “emergency relief” at any time.
Id. at 2.
II.
Based on representations made by the parties during
an
on-the-record
telephone
call
held
on
August
26,
2015, the court finds that, for two principal reasons,
the
requested
stay
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
patients on whose behalf the plaintiffs have brought
this
litigation.
First,
under
the
stipulation
and
waiver in support of the stay request, the Center may
remain
in
operation
for
one
year
without
comply with the challenged regulation.
having
to
Thus, with the
stay, the plaintiffs have essentially obtained, for one
year, the relief they sought with their motions for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Second,
the
stay
affords
the
5
Department
of
Public
Health, at its request, an opportunity to modify the
regulation in a way that may very well obviate the need
for this litigation.
It is in the best interest of all
if this case were resolved outside of litigation.
***
The court will, therefore, enter an order staying
this
litigation
in
accordance
with
the
parties’
stipulation.
DONE, this the 31st day of August, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?