McGee v. Cole
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10864
S.D.W. Va2014Background
- Plaintiffs challenge West Virginia marriage ban provisions: WV Code §§ 48-2-104, 48-2-401, and 48-2-603, plus related sources that exclude same-sex marriages from recognition.
- Six plaintiffs include three same-sex couples and a minor child; they seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Cabell County Clerk and Kanawha County Clerk in official capacities.
- West Virginia intervened as a defendant to defend the marriage ban’s constitutionality; clerks and intervenor move to dismiss the complaint.
- The court addresses a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ notice of supplemental authority and motions to dismiss, and a motion to amend the briefing deadline for summary judgment.
- The court grants in part the motion to strike (exhibits allowed, legal argument stricken), denies in part the clerks’ dismissal motions, and reserves abstention ruling for later.
- The court dismisses the non-recognition provision (48-2-603) claims for lack of standing, while allowing challenges to other ban provisions to proceed; plaintiffs may amend by a stated deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abstention under Burford applies | Plaintiffs argue abstention is inappropriate should a merits ruling follow. | Clerks contend Burford abstention applies due to state policy considerations. | Abstention rejected; abstention not required at this stage; ruling reserved on sufficiency to bind all clerks/state authorities. |
| Standing to challenge non-recognition statute 48-2-603 | Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the non-recognition provision. | Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge 48-2-603. | Standing lacking; 48-2-603 claims dismissed without prejudice; other ban provisions may proceed. |
| Failure to state a claim | Plaintiffs allege due process and equal protection violations, sufficient at this stage. | No controlling case law invalidating WV ban is required to plead excessively. | Plaintiffs have stated a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim; dismissal denied for lack of failure to state a claim. |
| Strike of supplemental authority | Notice of supplemental authority should be considered; exhibits are relevant. | Surreply-like filing should be struck for rule violations. | Motion to strike granted in part; exhibits allowed, legal argument in accompanying memo stricken. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (Supreme Court 1992) (domestic-relations abstention narrowly construed; not controlling here)
- Za-blocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (Supreme Court 1978) (unambiguous state statute; abstention inappropriate where statute is clear)
- Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (Supreme Court 1976) (abstention doctrine; discretion hinges on state-policy disruption)
- First Penn-Pac. Life Ins. Co. v. Evans, 304 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2002) (Burford abstention factors in Fourth Circuit)
- Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co., 199 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 1999) (illustrates comparison of state-law interpretation and abstention)
- Martin v. Stewart, 499 F.3d 360 (4th Cir. 2007) (abstention not appropriate where state-law interpretation is settled)
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (Supreme Court 2013) (doctrinal developments since Baker; Baker not controlling)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (Supreme Court 1972) (summary affirmance; not controlling in light of modern doctrine)
- Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court 1975) (limits of doctrinal developments in abstention analysis)
- Smelt v. County of Orange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006) (standing requires actual or intended marriage elsewhere to challenge DOMA §2)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118 (Supreme Court 2007) (futility and standing considerations in constitutional challenges)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (Supreme Court 1979) (standing where organizational interest demonstrates willingness to act)