Havens v. James

76 F.4th 103 (2nd Cir. 2023)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A federal district court entered a permanent injunction against several pro-life advocates. The 'Arcara Injunction,' named after the district judge who issued it, enjoined the named defendants from, among other things, entering the public sidewalk within fifteen feet of the entrance of any abortion clinic in the Western District of New York and from aiding and abetting others to do the same. The injunction listed the parties it bound, including Mary Melfi (now Mary Jost), Michael McBride, Robert Pokalsky, and Rescue Rochester, an organization led by Michael Warren. Twelve years later, P began sidewalk counseling near the Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester, New York. P invited others to join him, and they eventually formed an association, ROC Love Will End Abortion (ROC). P was neither a party to the Arcara Injunction nor aware of it, and did not avoid the fifteen-foot buffer zone defined in the Arcara Injunction. James (D) informed P that he and ROC were prohibited from entering the buffer zone because he and his group were acting in concert with the defendants named in the Arcara Injunction. D claimed that certain evidence established that D and ROC coordinated their activities with Jost and Rescue Rochester, two defendants named in the Arcara Injunction. D did not explain how P and ROC had acted in concert with Jost and Rescue Rochester or identify the evidence that D had reviewed. P alleges that a news reporter provided him with the evidence on which the City and D relied. That evidence included (1) Facebook posts by Rescue Rochester and by P that promoted training sessions at Focus Pregnancy Help Center and (2) a mailing from Rescue Rochester and a website post by Focus Pregnancy Help Center that encouraged participation in P's and ROC's monthly sidewalk counseling outside Planned Parenthood of Rochester. P sued D seeking a declaration that he and his group were not subject to the Arcara Injunction. He also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent D from enforcing the injunction against him and his group. The court dismissed P's suit for failure to state a claim. D appealed its denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction, and its decision to dismiss his complaint with prejudice without granting him leave to amend.