Raidoo et al v. Camacho, et al.

Filing 44

Order granting #12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 9/7/2021. (fad, )

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

VANESSA L. WILLIAMS, ESQ.
LAW OFFICE OF VANESSA L. WILLIAMS, P.C.
414 WEST SOLEDAD AVENUE
GCIC BLDG., SUITE 500
HAGÅTÑA, GUAM 96910
TELEPHONE: [phone]
EMAIL: [e-mail]
ALEXA KOLBI-MOLINAS*
MEAGAN BURROWS*
RACHEL REEVES*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 BROAD STREET, 18TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10004
TEL: [phone]
EMAIL: [e-mail]
* Application for admission pro hac vice granted
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10
11

THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
SHANDHINI RAIDOO, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

vs.

14

LEEVIN TAITANO CAMACHO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL CASE NO. 21-00009
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)

17

The court has considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 12)

18
19

and related briefing, and further pleadings and argument submitted in support of their motion1;
1

20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiffs originally sought preliminary injunctive relief against 9 G.C.A. § 31.20(b)(2), as well, to the extent that
provision required a Guam-licensed physician to be in the physical presence of a patient when they prescribe,
dispense, and/or otherwise provide medication abortion to patients in Guam. On March 5, 2021, this court entered an
Order on the Parties’ Joint Stipulation and Motion for Entry of Order of Settlement and Partial Dismissal of Claims
(ECF No. 27), dismissing Count I; Count II, Paragraphs 219-21; and Count III, Paragraphs 225-26 of the Complaint
(ECF No. 1) on the conditions set forth in the Parties’ Joint Stipulation and Motion (ECF No. 26), including inter
alia, that Section 31.20 does not prohibit the prescription, dispensing, delivery, and/or receipt of abortion medication
outside a qualified physician’s adequately equipped medical clinic and that the Attorney General of Guam, in his
official capacity, and the members of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners, in their official capacities, have no
legal basis to prosecute or take disciplinary action against a Guam-licensed physician under 9 G.C.A. § 31.20 or
31.21 for prescribing or dispensing either of the medications used in a medication abortion outside the physical
presence of the patient (e.g., through the use of a direct-to-patient telemedicine program), or to otherwise require the
administration of either of the medication used in a medication abortion in a clinical setting.

Raidoo v. Camacho; Case No. 21-00009
Order re Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)

Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 44 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 3

Page 1 of 3

1

the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

2

Injunction (ECF No. 32); and Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

3

33) and related briefing and argument. The Court has concluded that Plaintiffs meet the

4

requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, as the record demonstrates that Plaintiffs are likely

5

to succeed on the merits of their claims that 10 G.C.A. § 3218.1 is unconstitutional as applied to

6

the use of telemedicine to provide medication abortion to patients in Guam; that Plaintiffs and

7

their patients will suffer irreparable harm if Defendants are not enjoined from enforcing 10 G.C.A.

8

§ 3218.1 as applied to the use of telemedicine to provide medication abortion to patients in Guam;

9

and that Defendants will not be harmed if such an order is issued and the public interest favors

10

the entry of such an order.

11

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby

12

GRANTED; and the Defendants (along with their respective successors in office, officers,

13

agents, servants, employees, attorneys and anyone acting in concert or participation with them)

14

are hereby enjoined from enforcing, via criminal and/or licensure penalties as provided by statute:

15



telemedicine to receive the information required under that statute in person; and

16
17

10 G.C.A. § 3218.1(b) to require a patient obtaining medication abortion via



10 G.C.A § 3218.1(b)(4)’s individual, private setting requirement to prevent a patient

18

obtaining a medication abortion via telemedicine from receiving the information

19

required under that statute while located in the setting of the patient’s choosing,

20

including with another person (or persons) present if the patient chooses. Nothing in

21

this Order shall be construed to permit physicians or qualified persons under 10 G.C.A.

22

§ 3218.1 to provide the required information under that statute to more than one patient

23

at a time.

24

Raidoo v. Camacho; Case No. 21-00009
Order re Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)

Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 44 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 3

Page 2 of 3

1

It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall immediately notify all of their officers,

2

agents, servants, employees, and anyone responsible for the enforcement of 10 G.C.A. § 3218.1,

3

about the existence and requirements of this preliminary injunction.
It is further ORDERED that this Order shall remain in effect until further order of the

4
5
6
7
8

court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood
Chief Judge
Dated: Sep 07, 2021

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Raidoo v. Camacho; Case No. 21-00009
Order re Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)

Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 44 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 3

Page 3 of 3