United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-2086
KATHRYN MCINNIS-MISENOR; BRETT MISENOR,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
MAINE MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Deirdre M. Smith, with whom was Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon on
the brief for appellants.
William J. Kayatta, Jr., with whom were Margaret Coughlin
LePage, Joanne H. Pearson and Pierce Atwood on the brief for
appellee.
February 11, 2003
LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Kathryn McInnis-Misenor, age 43,
suffers from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and uses a wheelchair.
She and her husband are attempting to have a second child, but she
is not yet pregnant. Anticipating that she will become pregnant,
they brought suit in federal court in October 2001. The complaint,
as amended in March 2002, alleged that the Maine Medical Center
("MMC") was in violation of the architectural barrier provisions of
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.
§ 12182 (2000), and the Maine Human Rights Act, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.
tit. 5, § 4592 (West 2002). They seek an injunction to force MMC
-- the nearest hospital that handles high risk deliveries (as hers
would be) -- to move walls in the Family Center to make the
bathrooms wheelchair-accessible. The Family Center is an after-
birth recovery area of rooms usually used, when available, by newly
delivered mothers. If such rooms are not available, the mothers
remain in the newer Birth Center rooms, in a different wing of MMC,
where the delivery actually takes place.
McInnis-Misenor has reason for concern about her access
to the Family Center. She gave birth to her first child at MMC in
November 1999. At that time, MMC spent $5,300 to reconfigure a
private room in the Birth Center to make it available to her. Due
to complications associated with her giving birth, she was unable
to transfer to the Family Center and remained in the Birth Center
for the duration of her recovery. Even if she had not suffered
-2-
those complications, moving her to the Family Center was not a
viable option because no room in that wing had toilet and shower
facilities configured to be wheelchair-accessible.
In April 2000, McInnis-Misenor filed a complaint with the
Maine Human Rights Commission alleging violations of the Maine
Human Rights Act, based on her November 1999 experience. The
Commission investigated and issued a report, which we shall refer
to later, and which the district court considered. Among the claims
made to the Commission was that MMC failed to remove architectural
barriers in the Family Center.
A magistrate judge, acting on MMC's Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
recommended that the action be dismissed because the plaintiffs did
not at present have standing to bring their claims. McInnis-
Misenor v. Me. Med. Ctr., 211 F. Supp. 2d 256, 257 (D. Me. 2002).
The district judge agreed and dismissed the action, without
prejudice, on July 30, 2002. Plaintiffs appeal.
I.
Our review of the decision to dismiss for lack of
standing is de novo. Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat, No. 02-1669, 2003
U.S. App. LEXIS 857, at *14 (1st Cir. Jan. 21, 2003).
Normally on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, only the
complaint is reviewed. However, where standing is at issue, it is
within the trial court's power to allow or to require the plaintiff
to provide by affidavit or amended complaint "further
-3-
particularized allegations of fact deemed supportive of plaintiff's
standing." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). Here the
district court also considered the Commission Report.1
The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden
to establish standing. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 167-68
(1997). The plaintiffs initially argue that the district court
erred in not taking all factual inferences from the complaint in
their favor, as is required on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The
argument is misplaced. We and the district court both have assumed
it to be true that McInnis-Misenor is disabled, that plaintiffs are
attempting to have another child, that they will use MMC (a place
of public accommodation) for any delivery, and that at present the
Family Center cannot accommodate her. But Rule 12(b)(6) does not
require we make the inferences necessary to establish that there is
federal jurisdiction.
II.
A. Standing: Constitutional and Prudential
Federal courts are confined by Article III of the
Constitution to deciding only actual cases or controversies. Allen
v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). Federal courts can only
decide a "live grievance." Am. Postal Workers Union v. Frank, 968
1
The Commission Report is an official public record and
for that reason could be considered by the court in deciding a Rule
(12)(b)(6) motion. See Alternative Energy, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire
& Marine Ins. Co., 267 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir. 2001).
-4-
F.2d 1373, 1374 (1st Cir. 1992) (quoting Golden v. Zwickler, 394
U.S. 103, 110 (1969)). Standing is thus a threshold question in
every case, requiring the court to determine "whether the plaintiff
has 'alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy' as to warrant [] invocation of federal-court
jurisdiction." See Warth, 422 U.S. at 498-99 (quoting Baker v.
Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)). The constitutional standing
inquiry has three elements. A litigant bears the burden of showing
"that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury
as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant, and
that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action and
is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." See Valley
Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church &
State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) (internal quotations
omitted). As this court has noted, "Article III standing is
largely -- albeit not entirely -- a practical jurisprudence." N.H.
Hemp Council, Inc. v. Marshall, 203 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2000)
(citing 13 C.A. Wright, A.R. Miller & E.H. Cooper, Federal Practice
& Procedure § 3531.1, at 352, 355-56, 362-63 (2d ed. 1984)).
The plaintiffs' claim here involves a threat of future
injury.2 The parties dispute the degree of threat presented by
2
While plaintiff pursues a state law claim for damages
arising from her 1999 hospitalization, the ADA precludes her from
seeking damages in architectural barrier claims unless the Attorney
General assumes the case. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b). Further, as a
factual matter, a claim based on the 1999 events suffers from a
-5-
these facts to the plaintiffs' legal interests. Plaintiffs must
show that the threatened injury is impending and concrete, see
Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472, sufficient to constitute "injury in
fact." There must be some immediacy or imminence to the threatened
injury. See Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02 (1983); see
also Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990)(quoting Lyons,
461 U.S. at 101-02).
The standing inquiry "involves both constitutional
limitations on federal-court jurisdiction and prudential
limitations on its exercise." Warth, 422 U.S. at 498; see also
Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 255-56 (1953) (describing Court's
"complementary rule of self-restraint for its own governance" that
exists alongside constitutional restriction on jurisdiction).
Federal courts have identified a number of prudential concerns
regarding the proper exercise of federal jurisdiction. Three of
these areas are well-established: (1) the complaint must "fall
within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked"; (2) the
plaintiff "must assert his own legal rights and interests, and
cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of
third parties"; and (3) the suit must present more than "abstract
questions of wide public significance which amount to generalized
grievances, pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in
causation problem: she was too sick to move to the Family Center
in any case. As a result, it is only the prospect of future injury
which is at issue here.
-6-
the representative branches." N.H. Right to Life Political Action
Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1996) (quoting Allen, 468
U.S. at 751; Warth, 422 U.S. at 499; Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at
475); see also Adams v. Watson, 10 F.3d 915, 918 n.7 (1st Cir.
1993); United States v. AVX Corp., 962 F.2d 108, 114 (1st Cir.
1992).
Prudential standing concerns, unlike constitutional ones,
can be abrogated by an act of Congress. "Congress may grant an
express right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by
prudential standing rules." Warth, 422 U.S. at 501. We start with
the language of the ADA. The enforcement provisions of Title III
of the ADA are set forth in § 308, which provides:
The remedies and procedures set forth in section 204(a)
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a))
are the remedies and procedures this title provides to
any person who is being subjected to discrimination on
the basis of disability in violation of this title or who
has reasonable grounds for believing that such person is
about to be subjected to discrimination in violation of
section 303. Nothing in this section shall require a
person with a disability to engage in a futile gesture if
such person has actual notice that a person or
organization covered by this title does not intend to
comply with its provisions.
42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1). McInnis-Misenor is not "being subjected
to discrimination," so her claim must rest on whether she "has
reasonable grounds for believing [she] is about to be subjected to
discrimination." The statutory language "about to be subjected to
discrimination" dovetails with the usual prudential analysis as to
whether McInnis-Misenor's claims are too contingent and premature.
-7-
McInnis-Misenor cites some ADA cases to us, all factually
distinguishable. This is not, for example, a case in which the
existence of architectural barriers is the only reason the ADA
plaintiff has not returned for services. E.g., Parr v. L&L Drive-
Inn Rest., 96 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1079-80 (D. Hi. 2000) (finding
standing for a plaintiff prevented from using fast food chain
restaurant due to various architectural barriers because of his
sincere intent to return as evidenced by his past patronage and
taste for the chain's food). The ADA does not permit private
plaintiffs to bring claims as private attorneys general to
vindicate other people's injuries.
The statutory requirement that plaintiff must have
reasonable grounds to believe she "is about to be subjected to
discrimination" does not, in our view, displace the normal
background prudential standing limitations. See Bennett, 520 U.S.
at 163 ("Congress legislates against the background of our
prudential standing doctrine, which applies unless it is expressly
negated."); cf. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 n.3
(1973) (noting that while Congress may not confer jurisdiction to
render advisory opinions, Congress does have the power to enact
statutes expanding standing through the creation of new legal
rights).
B. Ripeness: Constitutional and Prudential
-8-
In general, standing and ripeness inquiries overlap. See
13A Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, § 3531.12, at 51 ("The most
direct connections [among justiciability doctrines] run between
standing and ripeness."); see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 499 n.10
("The standing question thus bears close affinity to questions of
ripeness -- whether the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to
warrant judicial intervention . . . ."). The overlap is most
apparent in cases that deny standing because an anticipated injury
is too remote, for example. 13A Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, §
3531.12, at 51. Ripeness, standing, and mootness3 are closely
linked:
Ripeness and mootness easily could be seen as the time
dimensions of standing. Each assumes that an asserted
injury would be adequate; ripeness then asks whether an
injury that has not yet happened is sufficiently likely
to happen, and mootness asks whether an injury that has
happened is too far beyond a useful remedy.
Id. at 50. Ripeness, however, can be thought of as focusing on the
"when" of litigation, as opposed to the "who." See E. Chemerinsky,
Federal Jurisdiction § 2.4.1, at 114 (3d ed. 1999). Even if
3
While mootness in general is irrelevant to the case at
hand -- as McInnis-Misenor complains of future injuries, not past
ones -- an interest protected by one aspect of mootness analysis
might be thought to be pertinent here: the "capable of repetition,
yet evading review" exception. See S. Pac. Terminal Co. v. ICC,
219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). Because some injuries occur and are over
so quickly that they will always be moot before federal litigation
is complete, such injuries are deemed an exception to the ordinary
mootness doctrine. See E. Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction §
2.5.3, at 132 (3d ed. 1999).
-9-
plaintiffs were the appropriate "who," the question of "when"
remains.
The test to be applied in ripeness analysis is whether
"there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse
legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the
issuance of a declaratory judgment." Lake Carriers' Ass'n v.
MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498, 506 (1972). The ripeness doctrine seeks
"to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature
adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract
disagreements." Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967).
Determining ripeness involves a dual inquiry: evaluation of "both
the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to
the parties of withholding court consideration." Id. at 149. Both
prongs of the test must be satisfied, although a strong showing on
one may compensate for a weak one on the other. See Ernst & Young
v. Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp., 45 F.3d 530, 535 (1st Cir. 1995).
Like standing, ripeness has both constitutional and prudential
elements. See Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 57
n.18 (1993); 13A Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, § 3532.1, at 118.
In the fitness inquiry, both constitutional and
prudential concerns operate, with prudential concerns focusing on
the policy of judicial restraint from unnecessary decisions. The
fitness inquiry "typically involves subsidiary queries concerning
finality, definiteness, and the extent to which resolution of the
-10-
challenge depends on facts that may not yet be sufficiently
developed." Stern v. U.S. Dist. Court, 214 F.3d 4, 10 (1st Cir.
2000) (quoting Ernst & Young, 45 F.3d at 535). "The critical
question concerning fitness for review is whether the claim
involves uncertain and contingent events that may not occur as
anticipated or may not occur at all." Ernst & Young, 45 F.3d at
536 (quoting Mass. Ass'n of Afro-Am. Police, Inc. v. Boston Police
Dep't, 973 F.2d 18, 20 (1st Cir. 1992)). The fact that an event
has not occurred can be counterbalanced in this analysis by the
fact that a case turns on legal issues "not likely to be
significantly affected by further factual development." Ernst &
Young, 45 F.3d at 536.
The second prong -- hardship -- is entirely prudential.
The hardship prong evaluates "the extent to which withholding
judgment will impose hardship -- an inquiry that typically turns
upon whether the challenged action creates a 'direct and immediate'
dilemma for the parties." Stern, 214 F.3d at 10 (quoting Abbott
Labs., 387 U.S. at 152). The greater the hardship, the more likely
a court will be to find ripeness. Ernst & Young, 45 F.3d at 536.
This inquiry encompasses the question of whether plaintiff is
suffering any present injury from a future contemplated event. See
Reg'l Rail Reorganiz. Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 143 n.29 (1974); 1
L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 3-10, at 337 (3d ed. 2000);
see also Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 242-43 (1982) (assessing
-11-
under standing both the injury to the church from compliance with
a challenged registration statute and the burden on the state of
demonstrating that the church is not a religious organization).
III.
We consider the constitutional standing issue to be a
close one. Plaintiffs here are better situated than those in Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992), who argued the
injury could some day occur, or the plaintiff in Lyons, 461 U.S. at
98, who argued that, having been once placed in a choke hold by
police when arrested, he might well be again. Within the Article
III standing cases, there is considerable language about not
recognizing standing where "hypothetical," "speculative," or
"conjectural" injury is at issue. See, e.g., Lujan, 504 U.S. at
560; Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101-02. Calling McInnis-Misenor's possible
injuries 'hypothetical' is, in a sense, inaccurate; it is clear
already what the nature of the claim is, the contours of the
threatened injury, that the injury would be traced to challenged
action, and that the injury is redressable by a court. See Valley
Forge, 454 U.S. at 471.
This is not a situation of a litigant "pressing solely
abstract concerns founded on ill-defined facts, creating a danger
that a judicial pronouncement would constitute a prohibited
'advisory opinion.'" 1 Tribe, supra, § 3-14, at 388. Plaintiffs'
-12-
concern is not solely abstract, given her experiences at MMC in
1999; nor are the facts ill-defined.
Nor is the standing issue in this case clearly resolved
by the precedent set by the cases relied upon by MMC that reject
claims to standing to challenge restrictions on abortion based on
potential pregnancy. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 121 (1973);
Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d 1121, 1124-25 (2d Cir. 1971); Crossen v.
Breckenridge, 446 F.2d 833, 839 (6th Cir. 1971); Akron Ctr. for
Reproductive Health v. Rosen, 633 F. Supp. 1123, 1128 (N.D. Ohio
1986). There is an important difference in the level of imminence
between the risk of an unhoped-for and actively avoided pregnancy
(which might or might not lead to seeking an abortion) and an
actively sought-after and planned-for pregnancy. It is, however,
also true that the time frame to obtain an abortion is shorter. We
decline to embrace a per se rule barring all claims to standing
based on potential pregnancy whatever the nature of the cause of
action. Given the difficulty of predicting all the possible claims
that might arise in the context of pregnancy, we cannot say that
standing can never be based on potential pregnancy.
In the end, we do not decide the more difficult question
of whether constitutional standing is present, because we think the
case may be resolved based on the prudential aspects of the
standing and ripeness doctrines. As noted above, ripeness and
standing overlap in many ways; for purposes of analysis here, the
-13-
cases dealing with ripeness present a closer fit. Both analyses
are concerned with fitness for review and hardship.
A. Fitness
In several ways, this is a simple case, and arguably fit
for determination. The legal issues are relatively
straightforward. Plaintiffs' complaint asserts, at paragraphs 22
and 23:
Removal of the barrier in the Family Center to permit use
by Mrs. McInnis-Misenor and other people who use
wheelchairs would be readily achievable for MMC within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9) and 5 M.R.S.A. § 4592
in light of:
a. The nature and cost of the barrier removal;
b. MMC's overall financial resources, number of
employees and the effect of the barrier
removal on MMC's expenses and resources; and
c. MMC's type of operation.
Unless Defendant removes the barriers in the Family
Center, Plaintiffs and other people who use wheelchairs
will continue to be excluded from the Family Center and
therefore unable to enjoy the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations
provided to non-disabled persons who stay in and use the
Family Center.
The claims and defenses are well-presented by the Commission
Report.
The Commission's Report detailed MMC's position on
whether renovating a room in the Family Center was "readily
achievable" under 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9). The Report outlined MMC's
revenue for the fiscal year ended September 2000, its expenses, and
its capital budget. It specified that the estimated cost of
renovating a patient room and associated bath/shower room was
-14-
$62,000. There would be additional costs from closing that room
while renovations were done. If money was spent on this
renovation, MMC said, it would have to postpone other ADA physical
barrier removals, such as a wheelchair ramp, or cut back elsewhere.
MMC also noted that it is a relatively rare occurrence to have a
wheelchair-using patient give birth, and there was not another such
patient between November 1999 and March 2001. MMC took the
position that it would be irrational to spend the money as
plaintiffs desired, as the labor and delivery unit has the lowest
incidence of use by mobility-impaired patients of any of the in-
patient units.4 The facts at issue are limited in number, and
easily discoverable, and this suggests simplicity.
But this simplicity is not enough to create fitness.
Even though the legal issues may be clear, a case may still not be
fit for review:
[T]he question of fitness does not pivot solely on
whether a court is capable of resolving a claim
intelligently, but also involves an assessment of whether
it is appropriate for the court to undertake the task.
Federal courts cannot -- and should not -- spend their
scarce resources on what amounts to shadow boxing. Thus,
if a plaintiff's claim, though predominantly legal in
character, depends on future events that may never come
to pass, or that may not occur in the form forecasted,
then the claim is unripe.
Ernst & Young, 45 F.3d at 537. "[P]remature review not only can
involve judges in deciding issues in a context not sufficiently
4
The Commission found that the Family Center renovations
proposed by plaintiffs were not required by Maine law.
-15-
concrete to allow for focus and intelligent analysis, but it also
can involve them in deciding issues unnecessarily, wasting time and
effort." W.R. Grace & Co. v. United States EPA, 959 F.2d 360, 366
(1st Cir. 1992). Moreover, this is not a situation in which a
decision is "unavoidable," as in Stern. 214 F.3d at 10. Here,
that the future event may never come to pass augurs against a
finding of fitness.
The chain of contingencies lying between the plaintiffs'
current state and their complained-of future injury bolsters that
conclusion. Like the situation in Ernst & Young, the present case
also depends on a chain of contingencies. In Ernst & Young, the
threatened injury was contingent upon a series of eight events
which may or may not come to pass, "a long string of
contingencies," we found, "so long that [Ernst & Young's] assertion
of fitness for judicial review trips over it and falls." 45 F.3d
at 538.
Similarly, the present case is one in which the
threatened injury is contingent on several events which may or may
not happen. First -- as the magistrate judge recognized -- the
keystone is that McInnis-Misenor may or may not become pregnant.
Second, there is no way of knowing when, if ever, McInnis-Misenor
will become pregnant, and so there is no way of knowing whether MMC
will by then have Family Center facilities available to mothers in
wheelchairs. Other contingencies include: if she delivers at MMC
-16-
(as is likely) she may or may not be eligible for transfer to the
Family Center; her delivery may pose complications, as last time,
which prevent her transfer; and there may or may not be room
available at the Family Center on the day she would want to
transfer. We do not suggest, however, that these latter conditions
alone would defeat standing.
As in Ernst & Young, "the case that [plaintiffs] argue []
is, at this stage, largely hypothetical, and such cases are seldom
fit for federal judicial review." Id.
B. Hardship
We consider hardship as well. The plaintiffs' weak
showing on the fitness prong means that they must compensate on the
hardship prong. The hardship analysis focuses on 'direct and
immediate' harm. It is unconcerned with wholly contingent harm.
W.R. Grace, 959 F.2d at 367. The plaintiffs contend that they will
suffer hardship from withholding of a decision. They argue that
they will be unable to present their claims in federal court, have
the claims heard, have the court grant them any relief to which they
may be entitled, and have the defendants comply with any remedial
orders, including the employment of necessary professionals such as
carpenters and architects to remove the barrier, all within the
limited term of a pregnancy.
We disagree with the plaintiffs' assessment of hardship.
There is every reason to think the district court could timely
-17-
resolve a case if McInnis-Misenor becomes pregnant and effectuate
a remedy. The legal issues presented by plaintiffs are not
complicated. Many of the facts are already presented, or can be
discovered readily. Discovery will concern the costs of the
architectural changes versus MMC's size and resources, matters all
capable of stipulation. We predict trial, if any, would be short
and discovery brief. MMC represented that litigation and
implementation of any decision could be accomplished within the
needed time. The magistrate judge expressed certainty that the
trial court could achieve speedy resolution and remedy, and there
is no reason to doubt that confidence.5 We do not find sufficient
hardship on the part of the plaintiffs to offset their weak showing
on the fitness prong.
In balancing these alternatives, we also must weigh the
fact that McInnis-Misenor may never become pregnant, or she may not
deliver, or MMC may have a new facility by then and so that the
claimed injury may never come to pass. The conditional nature of
the claims counseled in favor of the district court refusing to
entertain jurisdiction at this point. The prudential reasons alone
provide adequate basis to affirm the order dismissing the ADA claim
without prejudice.
5
For the reasons discussed above, while this case may be
capable of repetition, it would not evade review, because of the
district court's ability to respond to a complaint in a timely
fashion. This distinguishes the situation from that in Roe v.
Wade, 410 U.S. at 125.
-18-
IV.
We review the dismissal of pendent state law claims for
abuse of discretion. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,
728 (1966). The plaintiffs' arguments that the district court
should not have dismissed the pendent state claims are without
merit. When federal claims are dismissed before trial, state claims
are normally dismissed as well. See Camelio v. Am. Fed'n, 137 F.3d
666, 672 (1st Cir. 1998). It is up to plaintiffs whether to file
their state claims, as to past actions of the MMC in the 1999
delivery, in the state courts.
V.
The dismissal of the case is affirmed. Costs are awarded
to MMC.
-19-