Doe v. Chapman

528 F.Supp.3d 1051

Jane DOE, Plaintiff,

v.Michelle CHAPMAN, Defendant.

Case No. 2:19 CV 25 CDP

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division.

Signed March 23, 2021

Anthony E. Rothert, Jessie M. Steffan, Kayla DeLoach, Molly E. Carney, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, St. Louis, MO, Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.

Justin D. Smith, Sarah Jones, Office of the Attorney General of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CATHERINE D. PERRY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

At the time this complaint was filed, plaintiff was a pregnant minor who was seeking to obtain an abortion using Missouri's alternative authorization procedure set out in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.028¹ instead of obtaining the consent of her parents. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, the Circuit Clerk of Randolph County (where plaintiff sought to obtain alternative authorization for her abortion), refused to allow her to petition the court under the statute without first providing notice to her parents, in violation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to obtain an abortion without parental consent. Defendant admits that she told plaintiff her parents would be notified if she filed a bypass application, but claims that she was acting at the direction of the presiding judge and that her actions did not run afoul of Missouri or federal law. Plaintiff seeks damages against defendant in her individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.²

Defendant now moves for dismissal of plaintiff's claim for damages on the grounds that she enjoys either quasi-judicial or qualified immunity for her actions. Alternatively, defendant argues that she is entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff cannot show "that an official policy or custom existed for a judicial bypass hearing in Randolph County." Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment on the issue of liability, contending that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that defendant violated her constitutional rights.

Missouri's judicial bypass statute does not require prehearing notification of the parents of minors seeking to obtain judicial authorization to obtain an abortion and so defendant's statements to plaintiff were not in accord with the Missouri statute. However, if defendant's statements that such notice would be given were made at the express direction of the judge who would hear the application, then defendant would be shielded from liability under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. Whether this is the case, however, is a disputed issue of material fact that precludes either the dismissal of plaintiff's claims or the entry of summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the issue of liability. Defendant is not qualifiedly immune from suit, because the law in this circuit is clearly established that defendant may not require that prehearing notification be given to the parents of a minor seeking to utilize Missouri's judicial bypass procedure, particularly where the statute itself embodies no such requirement. Finally, because the United States Supreme Court has squarely rejected defendant's "policy or custom" argument, she is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that ground. For the reasons that follow, this case will be set for trial.

Standards Governing Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment

The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint so as to eliminate those actions "which are fatally flawed in their legal premises and deigned to fail, thereby sparing the litigants the burden of unnecessary pretrial and trial activity." Young v. City of St. Charles , 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).

On a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, even if it appears that "actual proof of those facts is improbable" Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, and reviews the complaint to determine whether its allegations show that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The principle that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Although legal conclusions can provide the framework for a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the record "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). "Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists." Nat'l Bank of Comm. v. Dow Chem. Co. , 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).

Background Facts ³

In December of 2018, plaintiff was a pregnant minor who wanted to get an abortion without the consent of her parents using Missouri's alternative authorization procedure. The statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.028, permits a pregnant minor to apply to the juvenile courts for either the right to self-consent to abortion or consent by the court to obtain an abortion. It reads in relevant part as follows:

188.028. Minors, abortion requirements and procedures – 1. No person shall knowingly perform an abortion upon a pregnant woman under the age of eighteen years unless:

(1) The attending physician has secured the informed written consent of the minor and one parent or guardian; or ...

(3) The minor has been given the right to self-consent to the abortion by court order pursuant to subsection 2 of this section, and the attending physician has received the informed written consent of the minor; or

(4) The minor has been granted consent to the abortion by court order, and the court has given its informed written consent in accordance with subsection 2 of this section, and the minor is having the abortion willingly, in compliance with subsection 3 of this section.

2. The right of a minor to self-consent to an abortion under subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of this section or court consent under subdivision (4) of subsection 1 of this section may be granted by a court pursuant to the following procedures:

(1) The minor or next friend shall make an application to the juvenile court which shall assist the minor or next friend in preparing the petition and notices required pursuant to this section. The minor or the next friend of the minor shall thereafter file a petition setting forth the initials of the minor; the age of the minor; the names and addresses of each parent, guardian, or, if the minor's parents are deceased and no guardian has been appointed, any other person standing in loco parentis of the minor; that the minor has been fully informed of the risks and consequences of the abortion; that the minor is of sound mind and has sufficient intellectual capacity to consent to the abortion; that, if the court does not grant the minor majority rights for the purpose of consent to the abortion, the court should find that the abortion is in the best interest of the minor and give judicial consent to the abortion; that the court should appoint a guardian ad litem of the child; and if the minor does not have private counsel, that the court should appoint counsel. The petition shall be signed by the minor or the next friend:

(2) A hearing on the merits of the petition, to be held on the record, shall be held as soon as possible within five days of the filing of the petition. If any party is unable to afford counsel, the court shall appoint counsel at least twenty-four hours before the time of the hearing. At the hearing, the court shall hear evidence relating to the emotional development, maturity, intellect and understanding of the minor; the nature, possible consequences, and alternatives to the abortion; and any other evidence that the court may find useful in determining whether the minor should be granted majority rights for the purpose of consenting to the abortion or whether the abortion is in the best interests of the minor;

(3) In the decree, the court shall for good cause:

(a) Grant the petition for majority rights for the purpose of consenting to the abortion; or

(b) Find the abortion to be in the best interests of the minor and give judicial consent to the abortion, setting forth the grounds for so finding; or

(c) Deny the petition, setting forth the grounds on which the petition is denied;

(4) If the petition is allowed, the informed consent of the minor, pursuant to a grant of majority rights, or the judicial consent, shall bar an action by the parents of guardian of the minor on the grounds of battery of the minor by those performing the abortion....

(5) An appeal from an order issued under the provisions of this section may be taken to the court of appeals of this state by the minor or by a parent or guardian of the minor. The notice of intent to appeal shall be given within twenty-four hours from the date of issuance of the order. The record on appeal shall be completed and the appeal be perfected within five days from the filing of notice to appeal. Because time may be of the essence regarding the performance of the abortion, the supreme court of this state shall, by court rule provide for expedited

...