District Court, D. Arizona — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona, Inc. v. Woods
District Court, D. Arizona · 1997-10-27 · cited 14×
This case involved a challenge by Planned Parenthood organizations and physicians under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to the constitutionality of Arizona's 1997 House Bill 2113, which criminalized performing a 'partial birth abortion' that kills a human fetus as a class 6 felony. The court held the Act unconstitutional after a trial on the merits, finding that it unconstitutionally burdened women's right to terminate nonviable fetuses by encompassing standard second-trimester D&E procedures, was void for vagueness in failing to clearly define the prohibited conduct, and imposed impermissible spousal and parental consent mandates without any judicial bypass or alternative procedures. The decision rested on findings of fact from medical testimony showing that the law would affect the vast majority of second-trimester abortions and lacked the precision or exceptions required by constitutional standards, leading to a permanent injunction barring enforcement.
abortioncriminal lawcivil rights
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt
District Court, D. Arizona · 1997-06-06 · cited 5×
The case involved a challenge by the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity to the Fish and Wildlife Service's denial of a petition to list the northern goshawk west of the 100th meridian as an endangered distinct population segment under the Endangered Species Act. The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment after prior remands, striking certain extra-record materials and applying the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary and capricious standard. It granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding that the agency's negative finding was unlawful because the Final DPS Policy—which limited listings to one subspecies per segment—was not authorized by the ESA's text or legislative history and the plaintiff had not been allowed to amend its petition to conform to the policy. The court remanded the petition to the agency for a new 90-day finding consistent with the order.
environment
Magyar Ex Rel. Magyar v. Tucson Unified School District
District Court, D. Arizona · 1997-03-14
This case involved a student eligible for special education services under the IDEA who was expelled by Tucson Unified School District after bringing a knife to school, following a determination that the misconduct was unrelated to his disability and without an IEP meeting or continued educational services. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment challenging the expulsion, the hearing officer's reliance on Doe v. Maher, and the district's policy of ceasing services for expelled students with disabilities. It decided that the district violated the IDEA by suspending the student for 175 days without services and by failing to provide a free appropriate public education, permanently enjoining the district from ceasing services after long-term suspension or expulsion and ordering compensatory education. The core reasoning was that the IDEA, as interpreted by the Department of Education, requires continued educational services for students with disabilities regardless of whether the misconduct relates to the disability, and that the district's policy and procedures did not comply with federal law.
civil rightsfederal power
Perry v. Chen
District Court, D. Arizona · 1996-08-12 · cited 6×
This case involved AHCCCS beneficiaries in Arizona whose health plans terminated or denied previously authorized medical services, such as dentures, speech therapy, and disposable briefs, without providing written notice or an opportunity for a hearing. The plaintiffs sued the AHCCCS director, alleging violations of federal Medicaid law and constitutional due process requirements. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendant's cross-motion, ruling that beneficiaries are entitled to written notice explaining the reasons for service reductions and describing appeal rights before such changes occur. The decision applied to terminations or reductions decided by health plans, not by the beneficiaries' own physicians, and required the defendant to implement compliant notice procedures under Medicaid regulations and the Fourteenth Amendment. The court denied class certification but noted that the relief would bind future beneficiaries.
healthcarecivil rights
Lambright v. Lewis
District Court, D. Arizona · 1996-07-09 · cited 4×
The case involves Joe Lambright, who was convicted in Arizona state court of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault for the 1980 killing of a hitchhiker during a cross-country trip, and sentenced to death. Lambright petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254, raising multiple claims including ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges to his sentencing. The district court denied the petition, finding that many claims were procedurally defaulted, that Lambright failed to show cause and prejudice, and that his constitutional challenges to the conviction and sentence lacked merit based on the evidence presented at trial and applicable precedents.
criminal lawprocedure
Spratt v. Northern Automotive Corp.
District Court, D. Arizona · 1996-06-21 · cited 24×
The case involved a former store manager suing her employer for six state-law claims, including breach of contract, gender and pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and defamation, plus a request for punitive damages, after her demotion and termination following maternity leave. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on all state claims and the punitive-damages request, leaving only the federal claim for trial. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to present probative evidence creating genuine issues of material fact on elements she would bear the burden of proving at trial, such as modification of at-will employment status, falsity of statements, or deliberate intent for punitive damages, consistent with the standards in Celotex, Anderson, and Arizona precedent.
labor & employmentcivil rights