2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIN DAWN BLANKENSHIP, individually and as parent and next friend of G.B. and S.B., minors, and SHAYLA BLANKENSHIP, individually and as parent and next friend of G.B. and S.B., minors,
Plaintiffs, vs.
RICK SNYDER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, BILL SCHUETTE, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Michigan, JOHN GLEASON, in his official capacity as Genesee County Clerk, and JAMES BAUER, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Probate Court for Genesee County,

Hon. Case No.

Defendants. _________________________________________/

THERE IS ANOTHER PENDING CIVIL ACTION ARISING OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTIONS OR OCCURRENCE AS ALLEGED IN THIS COMPLAINT, BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE MARK A. GOLDSMITH, THAT CIVIL ACTION BEING CASE NO. 14-CV-1149.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

NOW COME COMPLAINANTS, by and through their undersigned counsel, and assert as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This civil rights case challenges as unconstitutional the State of Michigan’s refusal to

recognize the existing marriages of same-sex couples residing in Michigan who were

married in one of the many states or foreign jurisdictions that recognize their fundamental

right to marry. The plaintiffs in this case are a committed same-sex couple raising

children who, following the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v.

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 2
Windsor, traveled as a family to the State of New York and were married in accordance with the laws of that state. When they returned to Michigan, they were denied recognition of their marriage for any purpose. Yet the marriages of opposite-sex couples legal in other states but prohibited in Michigan are routinely accepted if those marriages are legal in the state of celebration. This targeted rejection of equal marriage recognition for same-sex couples in Michigan violates the rights secured by the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for themselves and hope to set a precedent that will afford similarly situated couples the relief and recognition guaranteed under the federal constitution.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Plaintiffs bring these claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988 to redress the
deprivation of rights secured by the federal constitution under color of state law. 3. Jurisdiction over the federal claims is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C.§1331 and
§1343(3) and (4). Jurisdiction to grant the declaratory relief requested is provided under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because Plaintiffs and Defendants reside and have offices within the District and because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred, and will occur, in this District .
PARTIES 5. Plaintiffs Erin Dawn Blankenship is a resident of Genesee County, Michigan. She is
married to Shayla Blankenship. She appears individually and as parent and next-of-friend of G.B. and S.B., minors.
-2-

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 3
6. Plaintiff Shayla Dawn Blankenship is a resident of Genesee County, Michigan. She is married to Erin Dawn Blankenship. She appears individually and as parent and next friend of G.B. and S.B., minors.
7. Defendant Rick Snyder is the Governor of the State of Michigan. In that capacity, he is charged with ensuring that the laws of the State of Michigan are faithfully executed. Defendant Snyder is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983, and he is, was, and will be acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this Complaint. Defendant Snyder is sued in his official capacity.
8. Defendant Bill Schuette is the Attorney General for the State of Michigan. In that capacity, he is charged with ensuring that the laws of the State of Michigan are faithfully enforced. Defendant Schuette is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and is, was, and will be acting under color of state law at all times relative to this Complaint. Defendant Schuette is sued in his official capacity.
9. Defendant John Gleason is the County Clerk for Genesee County. In that capacity, he is responsible for ministerial functions relative to the family division for the Genesee County Circuit Court. See Mich. Comp. Law § 600.1007. Defendant Gleason is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is, was, and will be acting under color of state law at all times relative to this Complaint. Defendant Gleason is sued in his official capacity.
10. Defendant James Bauer is the Probate Register and Administrator for the Probate Court for Genesee County. In that capacity, he is responsible for carrying out certain ministerial functions related to the family division of the Genesee County Circuit Court.
-3-

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 4
Defendant Bauer is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is, was, and will be acting under color of state law at all times relative to this Complaint. Defendant Bauer is sued in his official capacity.
FACTS 11. Plaintiffs Erin and Shayla Blankenship are a committed same-sex couple who have been
together for nearly two decades. 12. Plaintiffs met in college and began a romantic relationship shortly thereafter. They began
living together in 1996. 13. In 1998, they moved into an apartment together and began attending law school together
in 1999. 14. In 2002, Plaintiffs moved to Flushing, Michigan, and purchased a house, where they
continue to reside today and work as attorneys. 15. In 2004, before the adoption of the Michigan Marriage Amendment, Plaintiffs held a
private commitment ceremony in Flint, Michigan, before their friends and family. 16. In 2006, Plaintiffs decided to start a family. Erin Blankenship successfully underwent in
vitro fertilization in 2007. In November of that year, she changed her name from Erin Dawn Western to Erin Dawn Blankenship. Her son, G.B., was born in 2007, and she raises her son with Shayla. 17. Erin and Shayla have raised G.B. together since birth, and consider themselves to be equal parents to G.B. 18. In 2012, the BLANKENSHIPS were put in touch with a woman who was considering placing her unborn child up for adoption. The BLANKENSHIPS accompanied the
-4-

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 5
woman on various doctor appointments throughout her pregnancy, and on June 11, 2013, S.B. was added to the Blankenship family. 19. After S.B. was placed with Shayla Blankenship, and following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, the family traveled to the State of New York with their children and were legally married in a small ceremony. 20. In October of 2013, S.B. was legally adopted by Shayla, as a single person, in Genesee County, Michigan. 21. It is Erin Blankenship’s desire and intention to allow Shayla Blankenship to adopt G.B. as a second parent, and it is Shayla Blankenship’s desire and intention to adopt G.B. as a second parent. Similarly, it is Shayla Blankenship’s desire and intention to allow Erin Blankenship to adopt S.B. as a second parent, and it is Erin Blankenship’s desire and intention to adopt S.B. as a second parent. 22. The Blankenships enjoy a close and loving relationship with one another and have created a stable, loving household for their minor children. They share finances, make joint decisions regarding their lives and the lives of their children, attending to one another’s needs and the needs of their children. 23. Shayla and Erin are married under the laws of the State of New York as well as the laws of the United States. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013). 24. The BLANKENSHIP’ marriage is not recognized in the State of Michigan. 25. No Michigan law prohibited recognition of marriages between same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions or the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples until 1996, when the Michigan legislature passed Public Act 324. The act amended four
-5-

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 6
sections of Michigan's laws to invalidate all marriages between same-sex couples. See Mich. Comp. Law Sec 551.1, 551.2, 551.3 and 551.4. A related enactment, Public Act 334 of 1996, addressed marriages performed outside of Michigan and provided that such marriages were "invalid in this state regardless of whether the marriage is contracted according to the laws of another jurisdiction." Mich. Comp. Law 551.272. 26. In 2004, shortly after the BLANKENSHIP celebrated their commitment ceremony before friends and family, Michigan voters approved “Proposal 2,” an amendment to the Michigan constitution that prohibited the State of Michigan and its political subdivisions from recognizing same-sex marriages or similar unions for “any purpose.” See Mich. Const. 1963, Art. I, § 25 (hereinafter “Michigan Marriage Amendment” or “MMA”). 27. As interpreted by the Michigan Attorney General and the Michigan Supreme Court, the amendment applies to state and local government. See Op. Mich. Atty. Gen., March 16, 2005, No. 7171; Nat'l Pride at Work, Inc. v. Governor of Mich., 481 Mich. 56, 748 N.W.2d 524 (2008). 28. The 1996 statutes and the Michigan Marriage Amendment operate to strip the BLANKENSHIPS of any recognition at the state or local level of government. 29. Under Michigan law, only married couples and single individuals may file adoption petitions. See Mich. Comp. Law § 710.24. 30. Because of Michigan’s prohibition on recognizing their marriage, the BLANKENSHIPS are unable to jointly adopt the children that they are raising together. 31. By prohibiting a second parent from adopting the child of that parent’s married partner, Michigan law impairs the family units of gay and lesbian couples, depriving the minor
-6-

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 7
Plaintiffs of the many legal, social and psychological benefits that accompany legal recognition fo their family unit, while depriving the BLANKENSHIPS of their fundamental rights to the equal treatment promised by the federal constitution. 32. Before the adoption of Michigan’s anti-gay restrictions on marriage recognition, the State of Michigan recognized all marriages that were performed outside of its jurisdiction unless those marriages violated some firm public policy that was codified by statute. 33. Michigan restricts the ability of opposite-sex couples to marry under certain circumstances. For example, Michigan does not allow first cousins to marry. See Mich. Comp. Law § 551.3 (“A man shall not marry his...cousin of the first degree.”). 34. Unlike same-sex couples, opposite-sex couples residing in Michigan may evade these restrictions on marriage by traveling to nearby states that permit prohibited marriages. When they return to Michigan, their marriages will be recognized by the State of Michigan. See generally In re Miller's Estate, 239 Mich. 455, 214 N.W. 428 (1927). The validity of a marriage between opposite-sex partners who would be prohibited from marrying under Michigan law is determined by the state of celebration, not the state of residence. 35. This difference in treatment is not supported by any legitimate state interest and causes substantial, concrete and real harm to married same-sex couples, including Shayla and Erin Blankenship. 36. In March, the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan decided the case of DeBoer v Snyder, No 12-CV-10285, 2014 US Dist LEXIS 37274 (ED Mich Mar 21, 2014), stayed by DeBoer v Snyder, No 14-1341, 2014 US App LEXIS 7259 (6th Cir Mar
-7-

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 8
25, 2014). However, the DeBoer case did not involve a married same-sex couple, but a same-sex couple seeking a marriage license. Additionally, neither of the stay orders issued by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed recognition of valid, existing same-sex marriages performed in Michigan on March 22, 2014 or those that had been entered into prior to the District Court’s order. 37. Following the decision in DeBoer, Plaintiffs Erin and Shayla Blankenship prepared paperwork to effectuate a second-parent adoption, believing that any remaining impediments to the recognition of their marriage had evaporated. However, they were told by Genesee County court staff that the State of Michigan’s continuing enforcement of the Michigan Marriage Amendment and the 1996 statutes prevented the staff from accepting any adoption petitions submitted by married same-sex couples. 38. Notwithstanding the ongoing litigation in DeBoer, which involves distinct legal issues that confront unmarried same-sex couples in Michigan, Defendants continue to refuse to recognize Plaintiffs’ family unit. Because Plaintiffs were validly married at the time that DeBoer was decided and because Defendants continue to refuse to recognize their valid marriage, this case is raises issues similar to the legal issues raised in the case of Caspar v. Snyder, Case No. 14-CV-1149. The primary difference is that the BLANKENSHIPS were married outside of Michigan. 39. Defendants’ execution and defense of Michigan’s restrictions on the recognition of valid marriages celebrated in neighboring states does not serve any compelling, substantial or otherwise sufficient government interest, nor does it serve such interests in an adequately tailored manner. As applied, Defendants’ actions have the effect of unlawfully
-8-

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 9
discriminating against Plaintiff parents and Plaintiff children. COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION
40. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-39 as if set in full. 41. The 2004 amendment to the Michigan Constitution and the 1996 amendments to the State
of Michigan’s laws on recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states and foreign jurisdictions prevent Plaintiffs from enjoying a broad array of stat u tory protections, benefits and mutual obligations tha t are conferred by state and local laws and regulations. 42. These protections, benefits and mutual obligations are conferred on similarly-situated opposite-sex couples with valid out-of-state marriage licenses who are otherwise prohibited from securing a marriage license in their home State of Michigan. 43. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of the laws. 44. As a result of the Michigan Marriage Amendment and the 1996 amendments to Michigan’s statutory regulation of marriages performed in other states and foreign jurisdictions, and as a result of the Defendants’ execution and defense of those laws, Plaintiffs are subjected to adverse treatment solely because of the sex and sexual orientation of Erin Blankenship and Shayla Blankenship. 45. This disparate treatment of Plaintiffs violates the rights secured under the Equal
-9-

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 10
Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
46. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-45 as if set in full. 47. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits states from
depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 48. The Due Process Clause guarantees more than a fair process for the deprivation of certain
fundamental rights and liberty interests. 49. The Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights deeply rooted in the nation’s history
and traditions, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. 50. The liberty protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right to marry and remain
married, the right to establish a home, raise children and make personal decisions related to family, life partnerships and education. It also includes protection from unwarranted intrusions by the several states into decisions that are central to personal autonomy and dignity, including intimate relations and family life. 51. The relationship of loving, mutual obligations secured by familial recognition is an interest entitled to the highest constitutional protections conferred by the Due Process Clause. 52. A legal marriage, once entered into, vests a family with benefits, rights and obligations that cannot be rescinded by operation of legislative, executive or administrative action. 53. Defendants’ actions in upholding, enforcing and administering the Michigan’s Marriage
-10-

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 11
Amendment and the 1996 statutes violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution by unconstitutionally burdening the exercise of fundamental rights while failing even the most minimal demands of the rational basis test, and it cannot survive any standard of scrutiny.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, for the reasons expressed above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter a judgment: A. Declaring that provisions of the Michigan Marriage Amendment and the 1996
marriage statutes prohibiting the recognition of valid, existing marriages between same-sex couples violates the Plaintiff childrens’ and Plaintiff parents’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. B. Declaring that the provisions of the Michigan Marriage Amendment and the 1996 marriage statutes prohibiting the recognition of valid, existing marriages between same-sex couples violates the Plaintiff childrens’ and Plaintiff parents’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. C. Enjoining Defendants, in their official capacities, from attempting to block state and local governmental recognition of existing, valid marriages between same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions.
-11-

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/14 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 12

D. Awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
E. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY T. GIBBS

Dated: June 5, 2014

/s/ Alec Scott Gibbs By: Alec Scott Gibbs (P73593) Law Offices of Gregory T. Gibbs Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-12-

 
 2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 28 Filed 02/10/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 389

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIN DAWN BLANKENSHIP, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
RICK SNYDER, ET AL., Defendants. /

Case No. 14-12221
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY [14] AND ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [15]
Plaintiffs allege that Defendan ts ha ve violated the Fourteenth Amendment by enforci ng Michigan law to deny recogn ition to Plaintiffs’ sam e-sex marriage, which was validly perform ed and license d in New York. The Supreme Court recently granted and consolidated sever al petitions for writs of certiorari from DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014), identifying the following question for review: “Does the Fourteenth Amen dment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was l awfully licensed and performed out-of-state?” DeBoer v. Snyder , --- S. Ct. ---, 2015 WL 213650, at *1 (Jan. 16, 2015). The Cour t believes that the Supreme Court’s
1

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 28 Filed 02/10/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 390
resolution of this question will likely be dispositive of Plaintiffs’ claim s.1 That resolution is also likely to occur before the end of the Supreme Court’s current term in June, approximately five m onths from the date of thi s order. The Court therefore believes that the interests of ju dicial economy outweigh any hardship t o the parties that m ay result from stayi ng this case pending t he Supreme Court’s decision. Cf. Morgan v. Snyder , No. 14-632 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2014) (orde r staying case pending Supreme Court decision on petitions for writ of certiorari in DeBoer). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay [14] pending final appellate resolution in DeBoer is GRANTED. The case is stayed pending t he Supreme Court’s decision in DeBoer and the cases with which it is consolidated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Moti on to Dism iss [15] is ADMINISTRATIVELY TE RMINATED. The m otion is closed without prejudice. If Defendants wish to reopen the motion, they may do so at any time by providing the Court with written notice after the stay is lifted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is CLOSED administratively. IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 In their Response to Defendants’ Motion to Stay [19], Plaintiffs argued that the Sixth Circuit’s decision in DeBoer would not be dispositive of their claims. The Court is now concerned with the likely effect of the Supreme Court’s decision, and need not address the effect of the Sixth Circuit’s decision.
2

2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 28 Filed 02/10/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 391

Dated: February 10, 2015

s/Arthur J. Tarnow Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge

3

 
 Case 2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH ECF No. 34 filed 10/22/15 PageID.427 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIN DAWN BLANKENSHIP, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 14-12221
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

RICK SNYDER, ET AL., Defendants.

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK

/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [30]

Plaintiffs—two married women suing on behalf of themselves and their

children—allege that Defendants have violated the Fourteenth Amendment by

denying state recognition to their marriage, which was validly performed and

licensed in New York. Suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs challenge

provisions of Art. 1, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution (the “Michigan Marriage

Amendment”) as well as 1996 statutes concerning marriage, Michigan Compiled

Laws §§ 551.271(2), 551.272. Plaintiffs request the following relief: (1) a

declaratory judgment declaring that the out-of-state marital nonrecognition

provisions of the Michigan Marriage Amendment and the 1996 statutes violate

Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the
1

Case 2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH ECF No. 34 filed 10/22/15 PageID.428 Page 2 of 4
Fourteenth Amendment; (2) an injunction preventing Defendants, in their official capacities, “from attempting to block state and local governmental recognition of existing, valid marriages between same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions;” and (3) an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
On February 10, 2015, the Court entered an Order [Dkt. #28] staying this case pending the Supreme Court’s decision on appeal from DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014). On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court rendered that decision. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). The Supreme Court held the Michigan laws challenged by the DeBoer plaintiffs invalid “to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” Id. at 2605. The Supreme Court also held that “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.” Id. at 2608.
On July 16, 2015, this Court issued an Order [29] lifting the stay on this case. On August 13, 2015, Defendants Shuette and Snyder filed a Motion to Dismiss [30], arguing that Obergefell has rendered Plaintiffs’ claims moot. Plaintiffs filed a Response [31] on August 13, 2015, and Defendants Shuette and Snyder filed a Reply [32] on August 27, 2015. On August 28, 2015, Defendants
2

Case 2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH ECF No. 34 filed 10/22/15 PageID.429 Page 3 of 4
Bauer and Gleason filed a Notice [33] of their concurrence in the arguments presented by Defendants Shuette and Snyder.
The Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims as moot. Plaintiffs do not deny that the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell granted a substantial part of the relief they request: the invalidation of the Michigan Marriage Amendment. Plaintiffs suggest, however, that Obergefell did not grant another part of their requested relief: the invalidation of the 1996 statutory provisions. The Court declines to parse the language and procedural history of Obergefell and DeBoer to determine if the 1996 statutory provisions have technically been declared invalid. Those provisions are obviously invalid under Obergefell, and Plaintiffs concede that they are currently unenforced. Further, as mentioned, the Supreme Court held that “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.” Id. This is an unequivocal, binding pronouncement that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by denying recognition to their marriage. Thus, even without any intervention by this Court, there is no reasonable chance that Defendants will again deny recognition to Plaintiffs’ marriage.1
1 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants cannot be expected to comply with the mandate of Obergefell because the Michigan legislature, with Defendants’ “full support,” recently enacted a law intended to permit child-placing agencies to discriminate,
3

Case 2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH ECF No. 34 filed 10/22/15 PageID.430 Page 4 of 4

In sum, the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs would have no effect on Defendants’ behavior toward Plaintiffs. Entry of the requested relief would therefore not render Plaintiffs “prevailing parties” entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1, 4 (1988). Because Plaintiffs can gain nothing from further proceedings on their claims, the Court will dismiss them as moot. See, e.g., 13B CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3533.1 (3d ed.) (“The core of both Article III and remedial [mootness] doctrines … is a search for the possibility that granting a present determination of the issues offered, and perhaps the entry of more specific orders, will have some effect in the real world.”). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [30] is GRANTED. SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2015

s/Arthur J. Tarnow Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge

on purported religious grounds, against same-sex couples seeking to adopt. The legality of enforcing this law, however, is beyond the scope of Obergefell’s mandate and the scope of Plaintiffs’ complaint.
4

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-12221 As of: 04/19/2017 09:24 PM EDT 1 of 4
CLOSED,REOPENED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−12221−AJT−MJH

Blankenship et al v. Snyder et al Assigned to: District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk Cause: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/05/2014 Date Terminated: 10/22/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional − State Statute Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Erin Dawn Blankenship

represented by Alec S. Gibbs Law Offices of Gregory T. Gibbs 717 S. Grand Traverse Flint, MI 48502 810−239−9470 Fax: 810−235−2468 Email: gibbsale@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shayla Blankenship

represented by Alec S. Gibbs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Rick Snyder
Defendant Bill Shuette

represented by Christina M. Grossi Michigan Dept of Attorney General 525 West Ottawa P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 517−373−6434 Fax: 517−373−2454 Email: grossic@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua O. Booth State of Michigan Department of Attorney General P.O. Box 30754 Lansing, MI 48909 517−373−1162 Fax: 517−373−2060 Email: BoothJ2@Michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael F. Murphy MI Dept of Attorney General State Operations Division P.O. Box 30754 Lansing, MI 48909 517−373−1162 Email: murphym2@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:14-cv-12221 As of: 04/19/2017 09:24 PM EDT 2 of 4

Christina M. Grossi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua O. Booth (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael F. Murphy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John Gleason

represented by H. William Reising Plunkett & Cooney (Flint) 111 E. Court Street Suite 1B Flint, MI 48502 810−232−5100 Email: wreising@plunkettcooney.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant James Bauer

represented by H. William Reising (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/05/2014
06/05/2014 06/05/2014
06/24/2014 06/25/2014 07/01/2014 07/02/2014 07/02/2014 07/02/2014 07/02/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by All Plaintiffs against All Defendants. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: 0645−4674544 − Fee: &#036 400. County of 1st Plaintiff: Genesee − County Where Action Arose: Genesee − County of 1st Defendant: Eaton. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan, 14−cv−1149, Judge Mark Goldsmith] (Gibbs, Alec) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
2 SUMMONS Issued for * All Defendants * (TMcg) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (TMcg) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael F. Murphy on behalf of Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
4 STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Time for State Defendants to Answer 1 Complaint. Answer due by 7/24/2014. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
5 NOTICE by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder of Motion to Consolidate (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
6 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. James Bauer served on 6/19/2014, answer due 7/10/2014. (Gibbs, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
7 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Rick Snyder served on 6/19/2014, answer due 7/10/2014. (Gibbs, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
8 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. John Gleason served on 6/17/2014, answer due 7/8/2014. (Gibbs, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
9 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Bill Shuette served on 6/19/2014, answer due 7/10/2014. (Gibbs, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-12221 As of: 04/19/2017 09:24 PM EDT 3 of 4

07/09/2014 07/09/2014 07/09/2014 07/09/2014 07/24/2014
07/24/2014 07/24/2014 07/29/2014 07/29/2014 07/29/2014 08/14/2014 08/15/2014 08/19/2014 08/19/2014 08/28/2014 08/28/2014 08/28/2014 09/11/2014 09/11/2014 02/10/2015

10 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua O. Booth on behalf of Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Booth, Joshua) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Christina M. Grossi on behalf of Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Grossi, Christina) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by H. William Reising on behalf of James Bauer, John Gleason. (Reising, H.) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
13 NOTICE by James Bauer, John Gleason re 5 Notice (Other) Concurrence in Notice of Motion to Consolidate (Reising, H.) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
14 MOTION to Stay by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation case, # 2 Document Continuation case, # 3 Index of Exhibits, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6) (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
15 MOTION to Dismiss by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation case, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4) (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
16 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
17 NOTICE of Joinder/Concurrence in 14 MOTION to Stay filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder by James Bauer, John Gleason (Reising, H.) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
18 NOTICE of Joinder/Concurrence in 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder by James Bauer, John Gleason (Reising, H.) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 16 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
19 RESPONSE to 14 MOTION to Stay filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Supporting Brief) (Gibbs, Alec) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
20 STIPULATED ORDER Extending Time to respond 15 MOTION to Dismiss: Response due by 8/14/2014 and 14 MOTION to Stay: Response due by 8/14/2014. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
21 STIPULATED ORDER Extending Briefing Schedule re 15 MOTION to Dismiss: Response due by 8/28/2014, Reply due by 9/11/2014. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
22 STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Time for Reply re 14 MOTION to Stay: Reply due by 8/28/2014. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
23 REPLY to Response re 14 MOTION to Stay filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3) (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
24 NOTICE of Joinder/Concurrence in 23 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder by James Bauer, John Gleason (Reising, H.) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
25 RESPONSE to 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gibbs, Alec) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
26 REPLY to Response re 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
27 NOTICE of Joinder/Concurrence in 26 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder by James Bauer, John Gleason (Reising, H.) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
28 ORDER granting 14 MOTION to Stay, terminating 15 MOTION to Dismiss and Administratively Closing Case. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-12221 As of: 04/19/2017 09:24 PM EDT 4 of 4

07/16/2015 07/30/2015 08/13/2015
08/27/2015 08/28/2015
10/22/2015 10/22/2015

29 ORDER LIFTING STAY and Reopening Case. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (KKra) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
30 Second MOTION to Dismiss by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
31 RESPONSE to 30 Second MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gibbs, Alec) Modified on 8/14/2015 (DWor). [MISSING SIGNATURE PAGE] (Entered: 08/13/2015)
32 REPLY to Response re 30 Second MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
33 NOTICE of Joinder/Concurrence in 32 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder by James Bauer, John Gleason (Reising, H.) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
34 ORDER granting 30 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
35 JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 10/22/2015)