Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri v. Brownback et al
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 52 defendants' Motion to Clarify. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 8/30/2011. (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 plaintiff Planned Parenthood of Kansas and
Mid‐Missouri’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 4), enjoining defendants Kansas
Governor Sam Brownback and Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment Dr. Robert Moser, from enforcing recent legislation designed to exclude
Planned Parenthood from receiving Title X family planning subgrants in Kansas. (Dkt. 39).
Following the court’s order, the defendants filed a Notice of Appeal (Dkt. 41), along with
the request to stay enforcement of the court’s Order. (Dkt. 43). The court denied the request
for stay. (Dkt. 48).
The matter is now before the court on the defendants’ Motion for Clarification (Dkt.
52), which seeks a determination
whether it is sufficient, to comply with this Court’s order pending the Tenth
Circuit’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Stay, which will be filed in the next
few days, and pending the Tenth Circuit’s ruling on Defendants’ appeal, for
defendants to pay Planned Parenthood on a monthly basis for family
planning services rendered by Planned Parenthood on a monthly basis, in the
amounts that were to be paid by Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (“KDHE”) to Sedgwick County Health Department under the
contract entered into by KDHE with Sedgwick County Health Department
for expansion of Sedgwick County Health Department’s family planning
services; and in the amounts that would have been paid to another provider
in Ellis County, but for this Court’s order.
(Dkt. 52, at 2). Defendants also ask that Planned Parenthood post a bond, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 65(c).
The court finds that defendants’ motion should be denied, as the intent of the court’s
Order was to restore and maintain the prior status quo between the parties, a relationship
which was premised on quarterly installment payments of a portion of the subgrant, not
a monthly reimbursement schedule, which would have the effect of undermining the
plaintiff’s ability to maintain its current level of services. The court finds no injury to the
defendants in maintaining the prior payment schedule, as they will be providing funding
2
in a manner consistent with prior practice between the parties, and to an organization
which has consistently provided satisfactory family planning services.
Even if the court’s Order is later vacated or modified, residents of Wichita and Hays,
Kansas will be best assured of continued family planning services by maintaining the status
quo. Similarly, in such event, defendants might provide funding to other family planning
services providers commencing the next quarter, without incurring significant injury. For
the same reason, the court in its discretion finds that no bond is required. Defendants shall
resume funding in accordance with this order immediately and shall continue such
funding until further order of this court or the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
modifying this order.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2011, that the
defendants’ Motion to Clarify (Dkt. 52) is hereby denied.
s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE
3
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?