Media Relations And Community Outreach >Court Cases >Rulings Court Rulings

Honorable Robert Oberbillig
Filed: 10/21/2009    Case Number: CV2004-009286
Plaintiff	Prosecution
Jane Doe	Plaintiff's Attorney Kristina Holmstrom
v.
Defendant	Defense
Joe Arpaio	Daryl Manhart

OCH – Courtroom 202

9:48 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument. Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Kristina M. Holmstrom and Bridget Amiri. Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, Dan Pochoda, is also present.Defendants Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County are represented by counsel, Daryl D. Manhart.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.

Argument is heard on Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment.

For the reasons set forth on the record and based on the legal precedent of Turner v. Safely as applied in this case in Doe v. Arpaio,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the Motion and finding the transportation pre-payment policy for an abortion, as applied to an in-custody indigent inmate, to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED modifying the injunction to require that the Defendants strike the pre-payment requirement from the rules and regulations for inmate publication and the Sheriff’s transportation divisional Operations Manual. Defendants must notify all detention officers and all employees of correctional health services who provide services to female inmates that inmates are not required to prepay for security and transportation costs as a condition of being transported for abortion care.

If Plaintiffs intend to file an Application For Attorneys’ Fees, said Application must be filed by November 20, 2009.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by November 20, 2009, Plaintiffs provide the Court with a new form of Judgment, consistent with the Court’s ruling set forth on the record this date, including blanks for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, if any. The Judgment and Application For Attorneys’ Fees, if any, will be lodged for objection upon submission.

11:07 a.m. Matter concludes.

LATER:
In light of the Court’s ruling above,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Defendants’ Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment Re: Advance Deposit Requirement.

<< Return to previous page