Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03142/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03142-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3142

___________

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, *

North Dakota, South Dakota; Carol *

E. Ball, M.D., *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellees, *

*

v. * 

*

Alpha Center; Black Hills Crisis *

Pregnancy Center, doing business as * Appeal from the United States

Care Net; Dr. Glenn A. Ridder; Eleanor * District Court for the

D. Larsen, M.S.W.A., * District of South Dakota.

* 

Intervenors - Appellants, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Michael Rounds; Larry Long, *

* 

Defendants - *

Amici Curiae. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2007

 Filed: January 25, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-3142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2007 Entry ID: 3271319
-2-

This matter comes before the court on the intervenors' appeal from an order of

the district court terminating their status in the underlying case. Appellants moved in

the district court on July 28, 2005 to intervene in this case after the issuance of a

temporary injunction barring the enforcement of a South Dakota statute which

amended the state's informed consent law to require additional procedures and

disclosures to women contemplating abortion. The district court granted appellants'

motion to intervene on September 23, 2005. Thereafter appellant intervenors fully

participated in the discovery and motions practice in the district court, including their

individual response to a motion by plaintiffs for summary judgment. They also filed

their own appeal from the order of the district court granting the temporary injunction

and briefed and argued their positions. 

On April 25, 2006 plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint by withdrawing

their challenge to the referral provision of the South Dakota statute which requires

physicians to notify women contemplating abortion of the name, address, and

telephone number of a nearby pregnancy crisis center. Simultaneously plaintiffs

moved to terminate appellants' intervention. Plaintiffs argued that with the

amendment of the complaint, the intervenors no longer had an interest in the litigation

which the state officials could not adequately represent. The district court granted the

motion to amend as well as the motion to terminate the intervention. The court

decided that since the statutory requirement to inform women about the availability

of a pregnancy crisis center would no longer be in the case, the state officials could

now adequately represent appellants' interests and concluded that their intervention

of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) should be terminated. It also held that permissive

intervention was inappropriate. 

A panel of this court issued an opinion on October 30, 2006, see Planned

Parenthood Minn. v. Rounds, 467 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2006) (Judge Gruender

dissenting), and the appellants as well as the state officials petitioned for rehearing en

banc. Both petitions were granted and the panel opinion vacated by the court en banc

Appellate Case: 06-3142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2007 Entry ID: 3271319
-3-

on January 9, 2007, and their petitions are both scheduled for hearing before the en

banc court on April 11, 2007.

Appellants appeal only the termination of their intervention of right. A district

court's decision about mandatory intervention is a question of law which we review

de novo. Sierra Club v. Robertson, 960 F.2d 83, 85 (8th Cir. 1992). When no statute

confers the right to intervene, mandatory intervention requires that the proposed

intervenor show that (1) it has a cognizable interest in the subject matter of the

litigation, (2) the interest may be impaired as a result of the litigation, and (3) the

interest is not adequately protected by the existing parties to the litigation. Chiglo v.

City of Preston, 104 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997). Because this appeal concerns the

termination of an intervention and not an order granting or denying intervention, it

requires us only to review the correctness of the district court's termination decision,

not its initial decision to grant intervention. 

Appellants are two organizations which provide counseling to women

considering an abortion and a doctor and social worker who work at the centers.

Alpha Center is located in Sioux Falls and Black Hills Crisis Pregnancy Center in

Rapid City. The South Dakota law challenged by appellees requires physicians to

speak to women contemplating an abortion about the embryo or fetus they are

carrying. Because of these provisions, appellants have potential reputational and

financial interests beyond their interest in obtaining referrals which this litigation

could impair. Moreover, their interests are even stronger now than when the district

court terminated intervention, for appellants' petition for rehearing en banc has been

granted and they will be full participants in the April argument before this court. They

also participated in discovery and motions practice by filing their own legal

submissions and conducting their own depositions and helped develop all the issues

in this case, not just the challenge to the referral requirement. The issues appellants

raise in their petition for rehearing are different from those which the state officials

raise, and the interests which they have at stake in this litigation are not identical to

Appellate Case: 06-3142 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/25/2007 Entry ID: 3271319
-4-

those which the state seeks to protect. At this point in the litigation we see merit in

appellants' contention that the state officials cannot adequately represent their

interests.

For these reasons we reverse the order of the district court terminating

appellants' status as intervenors in this case.

_______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3142 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/25/2007 Entry ID: 3271319