Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri v. Brownback et al
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 43 defendants' Motion to Stay; and denying 47 plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Briefing Schedule. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 8/17/2011. (mss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PLANNED PARENTHOOD
OF KANSAS AND MID‐MISSOURI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 11‐2357‐JTM
SAM BROWNBACK, GOVERNOR OF KANSAS,
AND
ROBERT MOSER, M.D., SECRETARY,
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENT,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On August 1, 2011, the court granted the Motion for Preliminary Injunction of the
plaintiff Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid‐Missouri, finding unconstitutional recent
Kansas legislation effectively excluding the plaintiff from participating in federal Title X
family planning sub‐grant funding in the state. Following this finding, the court directed
the defendants, Governor Sam Brownback and Secretary of the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment Dr. Robert Moser, to resume Title X funding to Planned
Parenthood. (Dkt. 39). The defendants subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal challenging
the injunction. (Dkt. 41).
On August 9, the defendants filed a Motion to Stay the effect of the injunction
during their appeal. (Dkt. 43). For the reasons provided herein, the Motion to Stay is
denied.1
A stay pending appeal requires proof of four elements: that the appeal rests on a
strong legal position, that the appellant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the
stay, that a stay will not cause injury to the appellee, and that the stay will not be adverse
to the public interest. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (finding the requirements
of Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 62(c) and Fed.R.App.Pr. 8(a) are “generally the same”). See also Northern
Natural Gas v. L.D. Drilling, 618 F.Supp.2d 1280 (D. Kan. 2009); Resolution Trust Corp. v.
Cruce, 785 F.Supp. 147 ( Kan. 1992).
This court has summarily denied motions for stay pending appeal which fail to
address the four necessary elements. See Boyce v. Dickinson County, No. 92‐4180‐DES, 1994
1
Contemporaneous with its Response to the Motion to Stay, plaintiff also filed a
Motion for Expedited Ruling, stating that defendants had yet to comply with the court’s
injunction order, and asking that the court rule on the Motion to Stay “on an expedited
basis.” (Dkt. 47, at 2). The court will deny the motion as unnecessary, as the court has
been prepared to rule promptly on the Motion to Stay as soon as plaintiff filed its
Response. Nor should the parties suffer the delay of a further Reply, especially where
defendants cannot address the missing elements of a stay for the first time in such a
pleading. See Stump v. Gates, 211 F.3d 527, 533 (10th Cir.2000); Rubio v. Turner Unified
Sch. Dist. No. 202, 523 F.Supp.2d 1242, 1252 (D.Kan.2007).
WL 477272 (D. Kan. Aug. 5, 1994). Indeed, under Tenth Circuit rules, “[n]o application for
a stay or an injunction pending appeal will be considered unless the applicant addresses
all of the [enumerated rules].” 10th Cir. R. 8.1.
The defendants do not attempt to address three of these elements, focusing solely
on reargument of the merits of plaintiff’s constitutional claims. Accordingly, the Motion
will be denied.
The court notes that even if defendants’ motion addressed the required elements,
the court would have denied it, as the elements weigh heavily against a stay. Denial of the
stay will work no great injury to the defendants. Compliance with the injunction means
only that the defendants will be required to authorize Title X funding to the plaintiff, an
organization that (prior to the Kinzer amendment) the State had routinely approved. In
contrast, granting the stay will work irreparable injury to the plaintiff, as explained in the
court’s prior Order. Moreover, denying the stay will advance the public interest.
Defendants contend replacement family planning services providers are available in Hays
and Wichita, but have failed to show that these providers have the present ability to meet
the level of services Planned Parenthood had provided.
Finally, the defendants have failed to make the required strong showing that their
appeal will likely succeed. The injunction is not mandatory in nature, and does not require
defendants to “accept applications from and give funds to all comers,” as defendants
suggest. (Dkt. 44, at 9). As the court stated in its prior Order, Section 107(l) conflicts with
federal law not because it fails to guarantee success to all applicants for Title X funding, but
because it guarantees failure for a disfavored minority of applicants. The injunction is not
mandatory, because it allows defendants to proceed in a manner consistent with the prior
status quo between the parties. The court finds defendants have not presented a substantial
basis for appeal on the merits.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 17th day of August, 2011, that the plaintiff’s
Motion to Expedite Briefing Schedule (Dkt. 47) and defendants’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. 43)
are hereby denied.
s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, 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?