District Court decision in Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina v. Cans

Executive Summary

District Court opinion granting summary judgment and permanently enjoining enforcement of legislation that would exclude Planned Parenthood of Central NC from receiving otherwise available funding for contraceptive and teen pregnancy prevention programs.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.
 
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff,
v.
Lanier CANSLER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant.
No. 1:11CV531.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES A. BEATY, JR., Chief Judge.
*1 This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction [Doc. # 42] filed by Plaintiff Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina (?Plaintiff? or ?PPCNC?), and a Mo-tion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 46] filed by De-fendant Lanier Cansler (?Defendant?), in his official capacity as the Secretary of the North Carolina De-partment of Health and Human Services. The parties' Motions follow this Court's August 19, 2011, Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunc-tion (?Preliminary Injunction Order?), wherein the Court enjoined Defendant from further enforcement of or reliance on Section 10.19 of North Carolina Session Law 2011?145 during the pendency of this suit. Sec-tion 10.19, discussed in more detail below, prohibits the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (?DHHS?) from providing state or federal funds to Planned Parenthood, Inc. and its affiliated organizations, including PPCNC. As noted in the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court reiterates at the outset that this case does not in any way involve funding for abortion services, but rather involves state legislation that resulted in PPCNC being expressly excluded from receiving otherwise available funding for contraceptive and teen pregnancy prevention pro-grams, as discussed in more detail below. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Sum-mary Judgment and Permanent Injunction will be granted, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied, and Defendant will be permanently enjoined from any further enforcement of or reliance on Section 10.19 of North Carolina Session Law 2011?145.FN1
The Court notes that Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [Doc. # 41]. In its Motion, Plaintiff seeks to amend its Complaint to incorporate certain events that have occurred since filing the original Complaint, namely, that the Court entered the Preliminary Injunction Order in this case, and that Defendant there-after tendered new family planning services contracts to Plaintiff. In addition, Plaintiff seeks to amend its Complaint to clarify Claim I (?Supremacy Clause?) by expressly adding reference to Plaintiff's intent to pursue that claim both directly under the Supremacy Clause and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In moving to amend the Complaint, Plaintiff does not, however, seek to ?raise any new claims, request any new relief, or advance any new theories.? (Pl.'s Mot. at 1, [Doc. # 41] ). Defendant opposes Plaintiff's Motion, contending that the Motion is untimely and unnecessary given that ?[t]here are no facts or laws different now than they were at the time of the filing of the original Complaint.? (Def.'s Resp. at 2, [Doc. # 49] ). In consid-ering Plaintiff's Motion, the Court notes that, with regard to incorporation of the events that have transpired since filing the original Complaint, both the Court and Defendant are fully aware of the contents of the Preliminary Injunction Order and the circumstances un-der which that Order was entered by this Court. Furthermore, with regard to Defend-ant's actions following entry of the Prelimi-nary Injunction Order, the Court notes that Plaintiff has submitted evidence in that re-gard as part of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction, and need not amend its Complaint to include such additional facts at this time. Finally, with regard to amending Claim I, the Court, in the Preliminary Injunction Order, addressed the implications of Plaintiff's Supremacy Clause claim both as a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and as a claim brought directly under the Supremacy Clause. As such, De-fendant is on notice of the bases for Plaintiff's Supremacy Clause claim at this time, and further clarification of that matter is unnec-essary to resolve the present Motions, as described herein. As such, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint for Injunctive and De-claratory Relief [Doc. # 41].
 

___________________________

This text has been truncated. To view full publication, download document. 

Related Content

For almost 50 years, the National Health Law Program has fought to expand access to quality health care to low-income individuals and underserved communities. Today we are pleased to launch a newly designed website for our future work to make health care a reality for all people. Please take time to peruse our new site, and sign up for our email updates to learn about us, watch the work we do, and become engaged.

Continue to site