UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION

Julia Amos and Wendy M. Downing, Plaintiffs,
v. Michele Higgins, Moniteau County Recorder
of Deeds, in her official capacity, Defendant.

) ) ) ) No. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:14-cv-4011

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Introduction

1. This is a civil rights action filed by Julia Amos and Wendy M. Downing. In this

action, they seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant, the Recorder

of Deeds for Moniteau County, Missouri, has adopted and is enforcing a policy or custom that

infringes upon each Plaintiff’s fundamental right to marry, in violation of rights guaranteed by

the United States Constitution, by preventing Plaintiffs from marrying their respective fiancés,

who are incarcerated. Plaintiffs seek a determination, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Mo.

Rev. Stat. § 451.040.2, which requires that marriage license applications be signed “in the

presence of the recorder of deeds or their [sic] deputy[,]” is unconstitutional as applied in

instances where one, or both, applicants is incarcerated.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States and the provisions

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a).

1 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 1 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 6

3. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2), because Defendant resides in Moniteau County, which is in this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Moniteau County.
4. Venue is proper in the Central Division pursuant to L.R. 3.1 (a)(2) and L.R. 3.1 (b)(2).
Parties 5. Plaintiff Julia Amos is a resident of Missouri. 6. Plaintiff Wendy M. Downing is a resident of Missouri. 7. Defendant, Michele Higgins, is the Moniteau County Recorder of Deeds. She is sued in her official capacity only. 8. Defendant has acted, and continues to act, under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint.
Facts 9. Plaintiffs are unmarried women over the age of eighteen years. 10. Plaintiffs are each engaged to marry an inmate in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections. 11. Plaintiffs’ fiancés are unmarried men over the age of eighteen years. 12. Neither Plaintiff is related to her respective fiancé. 13. Upon information and belief, Missouri Department of Corrections’ policy regarding the solemnization of inmate marriages is to allow marriages to be solemnized on two dates each year.
2 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 1 Filed 01/14/14 Page 2 of 6

14. Plaintiffs wish to marry their respective fiancés and obtained approval from the Missouri Department of Corrections to marry on February 24, 2014, subject to issuance of a marriage license.
15. Missouri law criminalizes the solemnization of any marriage unless a marriage license has been issued. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.120.
16. Marriages allegedly solemnized without a marriage license are not recognized in Missouri. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.040.
17. Missouri law requires both applicants for a marriage license to sign the application “in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy.” Mo. Rev. Stat. §451.040.2.
18. On March 21, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri “declare[d] the requirement of Section 451.040.2 RSMo that marriage licenses be signed ‘in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy’ to be unconstitutional as applied to situations where one or both applicants for a marriage license is incarcerated.” Fuller v. Norman, 936 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1097 (W.D. Mo. 2013).
19. On June 3, 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri declared that “the requirement of Section 451.040.2 that marriage licenses be signed ‘in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy’ is unconstitutional as applied to situations where one or both applicants for a marriage license is incarcerated.” Nichols v. Moyers, 4:13CV735 CDP, 2013 WL 2418218, *2 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2013).
20. Defendant refuses to accept any affidavit or other documentation in lieu of the inperson presence of an individual who cannot appear at her office because he is incarcerated.
3 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 1 Filed 01/14/14 Page 3 of 6

21. Defendant refuses to travel to the location where Plaintiffs’ fiancés are incarcerated, or send a deputy, so that Plaintiffs’ fiancés can sign a marriage license application in the presence of Defendant or her deputy.
22. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ fiancés cannot sign a marriage application in the presence of Defendant or her deputy, Defendant will not issue a marriage license, and Plaintiffs’ marriage to their respective fiancés cannot be solemnized.
23. The conduct of Defendant complained of above constitutes unreasonable and unconstitutional interference with and infringement upon Plaintiffs’ exercise of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
24. There are no alternative avenues for Plaintiffs to exercise their right to marry because Plaintiffs’ fiancés are in the continued custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections and are not at liberty to leave that custody to apply for a marriage license in person.
25. In addition to being deprived of the right to marry, the inability of Plaintiffs to marry deprives them of the benefits of federal and state law accorded to persons who are married, including, by way of example only, the right to make funeral arrangements for one’s spouse (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 194.119), give consent to experimental treatment, tests, or drugs on behalf of a spouse who is unable to consent (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.064), eligibility for social security survivor benefits, take leave to care for a spouse under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the marital exemption from the federal estate tax (26 U.S.C. § 2056(a)).
COUNT I Violation of Civil Rights - 42 U.S.C. §1983
Right to Marry Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
4 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 1 Filed 01/14/14 Page 4 of 6

26. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in foregoing paragraphs as if each were set forth here verbatim.
27. Defendant’s policies, customs, and practices, prevent each Plaintiff from marrying her respective inmate-fiancé.
28. The right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution that cannot be denied because of the incarceration of one partner to the marriage.
29. The acts described above violate the right to marry of each Plaintiff under the United States Constitution and unless enjoined will continue to irreparably harm each Plaintiff.
30. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.040.2 requires that marriage license applications be signed “in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their [sic] deputy.”
31. The statutory requirement that a marriage license not be issued unless it is signed in the presence of a recorder of deeds or his or her deputy is unconstitutional as-applied in instances where one, or both, applicants for a marriage license is incarcerated. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as follows:
A. A declaration, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.040.2 is unconstitutional as-applied in instances where one, or both, applicants for a marriage license is incarcerated;
B. Temporary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendant and her officers, agents, servants, and employees to issue marriage licenses to Plaintiffs and others engaged to marry individuals who are unable to appear in person before Defendant or her deputy upon receiving such alternate assurance of identity of the applicant as this Court deems appropriate, or, in
5 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 1 Filed 01/14/14 Page 5 of 6

the alternate, requiring Defendant to travel to jails or correctional facilities, or send a deputy, for the purpose of witnessing marriage license applications; C. Award Plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and D. Allow such other and further relief for Plaintiffs as the Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Anthony E. Rothert ANTHONY E. ROTHERT, #44827 GRANT R. DOTY, #60788 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, Missouri 63108 PHONE: (314) 652-3114 FAX: (314) 652-3112 trothert@aclu-mo.org gdoty@aclu-mo.org ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
6 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 1 Filed 01/14/14 Page 6 of 6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION

Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing, and Leisha Hendrix,
Plaintiffs, v. Michele Higgins, Moniteau County Recorder
of Deeds, in her official capacity, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) No. ) ) ) )

2:14-cv-4011-GAF

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Introduction
1. This is a civil rights action filed by Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing, and Leisha Hendrix. In this action, they seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant, the Recorder of Deeds for Moniteau County, Missouri, has adopted and is enforcing a policy or custom that infringes upon each Plaintiff’s fundamental right to marry, in violation of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, by preventing Plaintiffs from marrying their respective fiancés, who are incarcerated. Plaintiffs seek a determination, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.040.2, which requires that marriage license applications be signed “in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their [sic] deputy[,]” is unconstitutional as applied in instances where one, or both, applicants is incarcerated.
Jurisdiction and Venue 2. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).

1 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 11 Filed 01/23/14 Page 1 of 7

3. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2), because Defendant resides in Moniteau County, which is in this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Moniteau County.
4. Venue is proper in the Central Division pursuant to L.R. 3.1 (a)(2) and L.R. 3.1 (b)(2).
Parties 5. Plaintiff Julia Amos is a resident of Missouri. 6. Plaintiff Wendy M. Downing is a resident of Missouri. 7. Plaintiff Leisha Hendrix is a resident of Arkansas. 8. Defendant, Michele Higgins, is the Moniteau County Recorder of Deeds. She is sued in her official capacity only. 9. Defendant has acted, and continues to act, under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint.
Facts 10. Plaintiffs are unmarried women over the age of eighteen years. 11. Plaintiffs are each engaged to marry an inmate in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections. 12. Plaintiffs’ fiancés are unmarried men over the age of eighteen years. 13. No Plaintiff is related to her respective fiancé. 14. Upon information and belief, Missouri Department of Corrections’ policy regarding the solemnization of inmate marriages is to allow marriages to be solemnized on two dates each year.
2 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 11 Filed 01/23/14 Page 2 of 7

15. Plaintiffs wish to marry their respective fiancés and obtained approval from the Missouri Department of Corrections to marry on February 24, 2014, subject to issuance of a marriage license in sufficient time to allow security clearance for a minister and any guests.
16. Missouri law criminalizes the solemnization of any marriage unless a marriage license has been issued. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.120.
17. Marriages allegedly solemnized without a marriage license are not recognized in Missouri. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.040.
18. Missouri law requires both applicants for a marriage license to sign the application “in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy.” Mo. Rev. Stat. §451.040.2.
19. On March 21, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri “declare[d] the requirement of Section 451.040.2 RSMo that marriage licenses be signed ‘in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy’ to be unconstitutional as applied to situations where one or both applicants for a marriage license is incarcerated.” Fuller v. Norman, 936 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1097 (W.D. Mo. 2013).
20. On June 3, 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri declared that “the requirement of Section 451.040.2 that marriage licenses be signed ‘in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy’ is unconstitutional as applied to situations where one or both applicants for a marriage license is incarcerated.” Nichols v. Moyers, 4:13CV735 CDP, 2013 WL 2418218, *2 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2013).
21. Defendant refuses to accept any affidavit or other documentation in lieu of the inperson presence of an individual who cannot appear at her office because he is incarcerated.
3 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 11 Filed 01/23/14 Page 3 of 7

22. Defendant refuses to travel to the location where Plaintiffs’ fiancés are incarcerated, or send a deputy, so that Plaintiffs’ fiancés can sign a marriage license application in the presence of Defendant or her deputy.
23. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ fiancés cannot sign a marriage application in the presence of Defendant or her deputy, Defendant will not issue marriage licenses to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs’ marriage to their respective fiancés cannot be solemnized.
24. The conduct of Defendant complained of above constitutes unreasonable and unconstitutional interference with and infringement upon Plaintiffs’ exercise of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
25. There are no alternative avenues for Plaintiffs to exercise their right to marry because Plaintiffs’ fiancés are in the continued custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections and are not at liberty to leave that custody to apply for a marriage license in person.
26. In addition to being deprived of the right to marry, the inability of Plaintiffs to marry deprives them of the benefits of federal and state law accorded to persons who are married, including, by way of example only, the right to make funeral arrangements for one’s spouse (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 194.119), give consent to experimental treatment, tests, or drugs on behalf of a spouse who is unable to consent (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.064), eligibility for social security survivor benefits, take leave to care for a spouse under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the marital exemption from the federal estate tax (26 U.S.C. § 2056(a)).
4 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 11 Filed 01/23/14 Page 4 of 7

COUNT I Violation of Civil Rights - 42 U.S.C. §1983
Right to Marry Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 27. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in foregoing paragraphs as if each were set forth here verbatim. 28. Defendant’s policies, customs, and practices, prevent each Plaintiff from marrying her respective inmate-fiancé. 29. The right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution that cannot be denied because of the incarceration of one partner to the marriage. 30. The acts described above violate the right to marry of each Plaintiff under the United States Constitution and unless enjoined will continue to irreparably harm each Plaintiff. 31. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.040.2 requires that marriage license applications be signed “in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their [sic] deputy.” 32. The statutory requirement that a marriage license not be issued unless it is signed in the presence of a recorder of deeds or his or her deputy is unconstitutional as-applied in instances where one, or both, applicants for a marriage license is incarcerated. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as follows: A. A declaration, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.040.2 is unconstitutional as-applied in instances where one, or both, applicants for a marriage license is incarcerated; B. Temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendant and her officers, agents, servants, and employees to issue marriage licenses to Plaintiffs and others engaged to marry individuals who are unable to appear
5 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 11 Filed 01/23/14 Page 5 of 7

in person before Defendant or her deputy upon receiving such alternate assurance of identity of the applicant as this Court deems appropriate, or, in the alternate, requiring Defendant to travel to jails or correctional facilities, or send a deputy, for the purpose of witnessing marriage license applications; C. Award Plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and D. Allow such other and further relief for Plaintiffs as the Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert ANTHONY E. ROTHERT, #44827 GRANT R. DOTY, #60788 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, Missouri 63108 PHONE: (314) 652-3114 FAX: (314) 652-3112 trothert@aclu-mo.org gdoty@aclu-mo.org ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
6 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 11 Filed 01/23/14 Page 6 of 7

Certificate of Service I certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon defendants by placing the same in the First Class mail addressed as set forth below on January 23, 2014: Michele Higgins 200 E. Main, Room 102 California, Missouri 65018. In addition, a courtesy copy was emailed to Defendant and sent by facsimile to Defendant’s attorney.
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert
7 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 11 Filed 01/23/14 Page 7 of 7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION

JULIA AMOS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MICHELE A. HIGGINS, Moniteau County Recorder of Deeds, in her official capacity,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14-004011-CV-C-GAF

)

)

)

)

)

)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER Presently b efore t he C ourt a re P laintiffs J ulia A mos, W endy M . D owning, and Leisha Hendrix’s ( collectively “Plaintiffs”) M otions f or P reliminary Injunction. ( Docs. ## 6, 13) . Plaintiffs request the Court enjoin Defendant Michele A. Higgins, Moniteau County Recorder of Deeds, i n h er o fficial c apacity ( “Defendant”), from r equiring P laintiffs’ i ncarcerated fiancés from e xecuting o r s igning th eir m arriage lic ense a pplications in th e p resence o f D efendant. (Docs. ## 6, 13). According to Plaintiffs, because there are no factual disputes at issue and only questions of l aw r emain, P laintiffs r equest t his Court gr ant t hem a p ermanent i njunction as requested in their First Amended Complaint. ( Doc. # 16 ¶ ¶ 1-3). Defendant stipulated that she “does not oppose Plaintiffs’ request for relief.” ( Id. ¶ 7). F or the reasons set forth below, the Court finds declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to be appropriate.
DISCUSSION I. FACTS

1 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 17 Filed 02/06/14 Page 1 of 7

Plaintiffs are e ach engaged t o i ndividuals i ncarcerated at T ipton C orrectional C enter in Moniteau C ounty, M issouri. T heir m arriage ce remonies are s cheduled for February 24, 2014, but t heir m arriage cer emonies ar e at r isk o f b eing can celled b ecause o f P laintiffs’ in ability to obtain marriage licenses. In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that a requirement that each applicant for a marriage sign the application “in the presence of the recorder of deeds or t heir de puty,” a s pr ovided i n M issouri R evised S tatute § 451.040.2, i s unc onstitutional a s applied in instances where one (1), or both, applicants cannot appear in person, such as in this case where one (1) of the applicants for each marriage license is incarcerated. (Doc. # 11).
Defendant is the Moniteau County, Missouri Recorder of Deeds. As Recorder of Deeds, she i s c harged w ith i ssuing m arriage l icenses. In t hat c apacity, s he h as d eclined t o i ssue a marriage license to Plaintiffs because their fiancés are unable to appear in her presence. While she does not dispute Plaintiffs’ factual allegations or oppose their request for relief, she believes that she is bound by the statutory in-presence requirement and notes that any person who violates the pr ovisions of § 451.040 “ shall be de emed guilty o f a m isdemeanor.” See Mo. R ev. S tat. § 451.040.3. II. LEGAL STANDARD
Although P laintiffs’ M otion r equested f or a preliminary i njunction, the C ourt may consider their Motions as motions for permanent injunction. See Bank One, Utah v. Guttau, 190 F.3d 844, 847 ( 8th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). This Court has considered Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Plaintiffs’ related requests for declaratory and injunctive relief set forth in their First Amended Complaint. The parties agree that there are no factual disputes and that the issues presented for this Court’s determination are questions of law. The Court finds that the M otions f or P reliminary Injunction s hould be c onsidered on t he m erits a s M otions f or
2 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 17 Filed 02/06/14 Page 2 of 7

Permanent I njunction. Therefore, t he C ourt w ill de termine w hether a p ermanent i njunction i s appropriate.
In de termining whether a pr eliminary injunction s hould be i ssued, a di strict c ourt m ust take i nto a ccount four ( 4) f actors: ( 1) t he t hreat of i rreparable ha rm t o t he m ovant, ( 2) t he balance b etween t his ha rm a nd t he ha rm t o t he ot her pa rty i f t he i njunction i s granted, ( 3) t he probability of movant’s success on t he merits, and (4) the public interest. Id. (citing Dataphase Sys., I nc., v . C .L. Sy s., I nc., 640 F .2d 109, 113 ( 8th C ir. 1981) ). “ The s tandard f or granting a permanent injunction is essentially the same as for a preliminary injunction, except that to obtain a permanent injunction the movant must attain success on the merits.” Id. (citation omitted). III. ANALYSIS A. Plaintiffs’ Fundamental Right to Marry
Plaintiffs’ f undamental r ight to ma rry is p rotected b y t he d ue p rocess cl ause o f t he Fourteenth A mendment. Zablocki v . R edhail, 434 U .S. 374, 383 ( 1978). The f undamental nature o f P laintiffs’ r ight t o m arry i s n ot al tered b y t he f act t hat t heir f iancés ar e i ncarcerated. Because “the decision to marry is a fundamental right,” it survives despite a party to the marriage being incarcerated. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987).
Section 451.120 m akes the solemnization of any marriage in which the parties have not obtained a m arriage license “as provided by this chapter” a m isdemeanor. Section 451.120 also subjects a r ecorder o f d eeds w ho i ssues a m arriage license “ contrary t o t he pr ovisions of this chapter” to c riminal p enalties. Marriages s olemnized w ithout a l icense are n ot recognized as valid in M issouri. Mo. R ev. S tat. § 451.040.1. S ection 451.040.2 r equires t hat “ [b]efore applicants for a marriage license shall receive a license, and before the recorder of deeds shall be
3 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 17 Filed 02/06/14 Page 3 of 7

authorized t o i ssue a license, t he pa rties t o t he marriage s hall pr esent a n a pplication f or t he license, duly executed and signed in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy.”
“State l aws de fining a nd r egulating m arriage, of course, m ust r espect t he c onstitutional rights o f pe rsons[.]” United St ates v . Windsor, 133 S . C t. 2675, 2691 (2013). The s tatutory requirement that both parties to a prospective marriage execute and sign a marriage license in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy significantly interferes with Plaintiffs’ exercise of their fundamental right to marry their fiancés. There can be no di stinction between actively prohibiting the exercise of the right to marry and action that completely frustrates that right. See Toms v. Taft, 338 F.3d 519, 527 (6th Cir. 2003).
A statutory classification that significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right c annot be uphe ld “ unless i t i s s upported by s ufficiently imp ortant s tate in terests a nd i s closely t ailored t o ef fectuate o nly t hose i nterests.” Zablocki, 434 U .S. a t 388. No party h as advanced a state i nterest s ufficiently i mportant t o obl igate i ndividuals w ho a re e ngaged t o be married, but una ble t o t ravel t o t he r ecorder of deeds, t o e xecute a nd s ign a m arriage l icense application i n t he pr esence of t he r ecorder of d eeds or de puty. The r ecorder o f de eds c ould verify the identity of an incarcerated marriage license applicant through various means without requiring t hat ap plicant t o s ign t he m arriage l icense ap plication i n t he r ecorder’s p hysical presence. See Fuller v . N orman, 936 F . Supp. 2d 1096 , 1098 (W.D. Mo. 2013) ; Nichols v . Moyers, 4:13CV735 CDP, 2013 W L 2418218 ( E.D. Mo. June 3, 2013); Buck v. Stankovic, 485 F. S upp. 2d 576, 585 ( M.D. P a. 2007). The C ourt f inds t hat t he “i n p resence” r equirement o f § 451.040.2 is n ot c losely tailored to s olely effectuate a s ufficiently imp ortant s tate in terest a s applied to persons applying for marriage licenses who are unable to appear in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy. See Fuller, 936 F. Supp. at 1098. Accordingly, § 451.040.2 is
4 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 17 Filed 02/06/14 Page 4 of 7

unconstitutional as applied to situations where an applicant for a m arriage license is physically unable to appear in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy due to incarceration at Tipton C orrectional C enter or ot her i ncarceration f acilities l ocated i n M oniteau C ounty, Missouri. B. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Injunctive Relief
The C ourt finds th at P laintiffs a re entitled to th e p ermanent in junctive relief th ey s eek from D efendant. This C ourt ha s de clared t he r equirement of M o. R ev. S tat. § 451.040.2 t hat marriage l icenses b e s igned “i n t he p resence o f t he r ecorder o f d eeds or t heir d eputy” t o b e unconstitutional as applied to situations where an applicant for a marriage license is physically unable to appear in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy due to incarceration at Tipton C orrectional C enter or ot her i ncarceration facilities l ocated i n M oniteau C ounty, Missouri. Thus, Plaintiffs have attained success on the merits of that claim as required to obtain a permanent injunction. See Guttau, 190 F.3d at 847.
The C ourt a lso f inds t he ot her pr eliminary i njunction f actors a re m et. See id. ( citing Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 113). Plaintiffs’ ongoing inability to exercise their fundamental right to marry s hows t hat t hey a re t hreatened w ith i rreparable h arm i n t he ab sence of i njunctive r elief. The Court finds that the balance of harms favors Plaintiffs. Finally, the Eighth Circuit has made clear th at “ it is a lways in th e p ublic in terest to protect c onstitutional r ights.” Phelps–Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685, 69 0 (8th Cir. 2008). Thus, the issuance of a permanent injunction would serve the public interest. Because Plaintiffs has attained success on the merits and demonstrated all relevant factors to support granting an injunction, Plaintiffs have met their burden sufficient to grant their relief requested.
CONCLUSION
5 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 17 Filed 02/06/14 Page 5 of 7

The Court finds that the requirement that marriage licenses be signed “in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy,” as provided in Section 451.040.2 of Missouri’s Revised Statutes, is unconstitutional as applied to situations where an applicant for a marriage license is physically unable t o ap pear i n t he p resence o f t he r ecorder o f d eeds or t heir de puty due t o incarceration at t he Tipton C orrectional C enter or o ther in carceration f acilities located i n Moniteau County. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the requests for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint are GRANTED.1
IT I S F URTHER O RDERED that D efendant, he r s uccessors i n of fice, a nd t heir officers, a gents, s ervants, a nd e mployees a re he reby pe rmanently e njoined f rom r equiring individuals who are physically unable to appear in the presence of the recorder of deeds or their deputy, due t o i ncarceration at t he Tipton C orrectional C enter or o ther in carceration f acilities located i n M oniteau C ounty, to execute o r s ign m arriage l icense applications to a ppear in th e presence of the Moniteau County recorder of deeds or any deputy of that official as a condition for issuance of a marriage license.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon reasonable written proof as to the authenticity of the signature of an applicant on a marriage license application, upon reasonable verified proof of th e f act th at th e a pplicant is physically unable t o ap pear i n t he p resence o f t he recorder o f deeds at the time the application is completed, and upon receipt of all fees and other documents required for t he i ssuance o f a m arriage l icense u nder t he l aws o f t he S tate o f M issouri, Defendant, her successors in office, and their deputies, officers, agents, servants, and employees
1 Because the Court grants Plaintiffs the relief requested in their First Amended Complaint, as well as a permanent injunction, Plaintiffs’ Motions for Temporary Restraining Order (Docs. ## 5, 12) and Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. ## 6, 13) are DENIED as moot.
6 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 17 Filed 02/06/14 Page 6 of 7

are h ereby r equired t o i ssue m arriage l icenses t o a ny s uch i ndividual a nd hi s or h er fiancé without r equiring a ny such incarcerated applicant t o ex ecute o r s ign a m arriage l icense application in the presence of the recorder of deeds or any deputy of that official for the County of Moniteau, Missouri.
IT I S L ASTLY O RDERED that t he r equirement of “ reasonable w ritten pr oof” of t he applicant’s signature and of the applicant’s incarcerated status shall be deemed to have been met by presenting t he following t o Defendant, her s uccessors i n office, and t heir deputies, officers, agents, s ervants, a nd e mployees, at t he of fice of t he R ecorder of D eeds f or t he C ounty of Moniteau, Missouri:
An affidavit or sworn statement: (a) Identifying the names of both applicants for the marriage license; (b) Signed b y th e in carcerated a pplicant s tating in s ubstantial p art th at the applicant i s unable t o appear i n t he presence of t he recorder of deeds due t o the applicant’s i ncarceration, w hich s hall b e verified b y the warden o r warden’s designee and acknowledged by a notary public commissioned by the State of Missouri at the time of verification; and (c) The co mpleted an d l egible m arriage l icense application o f t he i ncarcerated applicant. s/ Gary A. Fenner Gary A. Fenner, Judge United States District Court
DATED: February 6, 2014
7 Case 2:14-cv-04011-GAF Document 17 Filed 02/06/14 Page 7 of 7

 
 CLOSED,EAPN
U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Jefferson City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−04011−GAF

Amos et al v. Higgins Assigned to: District Judge Gary A. Fenner Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Julia Amos
Plaintiff Wendy M. Downing
Plaintiff Leisha Hendrix

Date Filed: 01/14/2014 Date Terminated: 02/07/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Grant R. Doty American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 669−3422 Fax: (314) 652−3112 Email: grant@aclu−em.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony E. Rothert American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 669−3420 Fax: (314) 652−3112 Email: trothert@aclu−mo.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Grant R. Doty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony E. Rothert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony E. Rothert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Michele Higgins in her official capacity as Montiteau County Recorder of Deeds

represented by Michael G Berry Berry Wilson, LLC 200 East High Street Ste. 300 PO Box 1606 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573) 638−7272 Fax: (573) 638−2693 Email: michaelberry@berrywilsonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-04011-GAF As of: 07/18/2014 10:09 AM CDT 1 of 3

Date Filed 01/14/2014 01/14/2014
01/14/2014
01/14/2014 01/14/2014 01/14/2014 01/14/2014 01/14/2014
01/14/2014 01/15/2014 01/22/2014 01/23/2014 01/23/2014 01/23/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Michele Higgins filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing. Filing fee $400, receipt number 0866−3797330. Service due by 5/19/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
2 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER TRANSFERRING/REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to District Judge Gary A. Fenner for all further proceedings. District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey no longer assigned to case Signed on 01/14/2014 by Clerk of Court. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
3 NEW NOTICE OF INCLUSION FOR MEDIATION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MAP). REVIEW NEW NOTICE AND NEW MAP GENERAL ORDER CAREFULLY FOR IMPORTANT CHANGES, DEADLINES AND REQUIREMENTS.
Notice of MAP assignment to an outside mediator. (Attachments: # 1 MAP General Order)(Lock, Tania) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Michele Higgins and emailed to plaintiff's counsel. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
4 NOTICE of appearance by Grant R. Doty on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attorney Grant R. Doty added to party Julia Amos(pty:pla), Attorney Grant R. Doty added to party Wendy M. Downing(pty:pla))(Doty, Grant) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
5 MOTION for temporary restraining order filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/31/2014 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
6 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/31/2014 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
7 SUGGESTIONS in support re 6 MOTION for preliminary injunction , 5 MOTION for temporary restraining order filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A − Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B − Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C − Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit Ex. D − Affidavit)(Related document(s) 6 , 5 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
8 NOTICE of filing NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY by Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing re 1 Complaint (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing. Michele Higgins served on 1/15/2014, answer due 2/5/2014. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
10 NOTICE of filing of correspondence from Attorney General of Missouri by Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing re 8 Notice of filing (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Attorney General of Missouri's office)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
11 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Michele Higgins filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing, Leisha Hendrix.(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
12 MOTION for temporary restraining order filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Leisha Hendrix. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/10/2014 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
13 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Leisha Hendrix. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/10/2014 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-04011-GAF As of: 07/18/2014 10:09 AM CDT 2 of 3

01/23/2014
01/23/2014
02/05/2014 02/05/2014 02/06/2014 02/07/2014

14 SUGGESTIONS in support re 13 MOTION for preliminary injunction , 12 MOTION for temporary restraining order filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiff Leisha Hendrix. (Related document(s) 13 , 12 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Main Document 14 replaced on 1/23/2014) (Chorny, Traci). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2014: # 1 Exhibit E − Affidavit of Leisha Hendrix) (Chorny, Traci). (Entered: 01/23/2014)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 1/23/2014 as Document No. 14, Suggestions in Support of Motion. The document has been deleted as the incorrect document was filed. Counsel has emailed the court and the court has replaced the document with the correct one. A corrected NEF will be regenerated. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Chorny, Traci) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
15 NOTICE of appearance by Michael G Berry on behalf of Michele Higgins (Attorney Michael G Berry added to party Michele Higgins(pty:dft))(Berry, Michael) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
16 STIPULATION by Julia Amos, Wendy M. Downing, Leisha Hendrix. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
17 JUDGMENT and ORDER. Signed on 2/6/14 by District Judge Gary A. Fenner. (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
18 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. (Moore, Terri) (Entered: 02/07/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-04011-GAF As of: 07/18/2014 10:09 AM CDT 3 of 3