TANYA WALTON PRATT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment ("Motion to Amend Judgment") filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) by Defendant Dr. Jerome Adams in his official capacity as the Indiana State Health Commissioner ("State Defendant") (
Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court granted the County Defendant's motion for summary judgment, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the State Defendant, and denied the State Defendant's motion for summary judgment (
Plaintiffs Ashlee Henderson, Ruby Henderson, L.W.C.H., Nicole Singley, Jennifer Singley, H.S., Elizabeth Bush-Sawyer, Tonya Bush-Sawyer, I.J.B-S, Cathy Bannick, Lyndsey Bannick, H.N.B., Nikkole McKinley-Barrett, Donnica Barrett, G.R.M.B., Calle Janson, Sarah Janson, F.G.J., Jackie Phillips-Stackman, Lisa Phillips-Stackman, L.J.P-S, Noell Allen, and Crystal Allen (collectively "Plaintiffs") are female, same-sex married couples and their children whose birth certificates list only the birth mother as a parent with no second parent.
Plaintiffs Elizabeth and Tonya Bush-Sawyer were married in 2010 in Washington, D.C. They artificially conceived I.J.B-S, who was born on January 10, 2014. When I.J.B-S was born, Elizabeth, the birth mother, completed the Indiana Birth Worksheet and provided Tonya's information for all the questions that asked about the father of the child. After returning home from the hospital with I.J.B-S, the couple received a birth confirmation letter that listed both women as the parents of I.J.B-S and that listed the child's name as a hyphenated version of both their last names. In March 2014, Elizabeth went to the Marion County Health Department to obtain a birth certificate for I.J.B-S. At the health department, she was told there was something wrong, and she would need to return the next day. When she returned, Elizabeth was presented with a birth certificate that listed her as the only parent of I.J.B-S, and the child's name had been changed from I.J.B-S to I.J.B. Shortly thereafter, Elizabeth and Tonya received a new social security card for I.J.B-S, which listed the name as I.J.B.
Because of this incident, Tonya sought a stepparent adoption, which required her to undergo fingerprinting and a criminal background check in addition to submitting her driving record, her financial profile, and the veterinary records for any pet living in the home. A home study was required, which examines the relationship history of Elizabeth and Tonya, requires them to write an autobiography and to discuss their parenting philosophy, and requires them to open their home for inspection. The cost for their stepparent adoption was approximately $4,200.00. This same costly and time-consuming adoption process is not required of opposite-sex married couples who artificially conceive a child. Instead, the non-biological father who is married to the birth mother is listed on the birth certificate and recognized as the child's father.
Plaintiffs Ashlee and Ruby Henderson were married on November 11, 2014, in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. They had been together as a couple for over eight years prior to their marriage, and they decided that they wanted a child in their family. After the couple's artificial conception of L.W.C.H., the Indiana statute prohibiting same-sex marriage was declared unconstitutional, so Ashlee and Ruby married.
During the week of November 2, 2014, the couple contacted IU Health Arnett Hospital, where L.W.C.H. would be born, to ask if both spouses would be listed on the birth certificate as parents of L.W.C.H. after the couple was married. They were told to contact the Tippecanoe County Health Department, which they did the same day. They were informed that Ashlee would not be listed on the birth certificate as a parent of L.W.C.H. without a court order.
On December 22, 2014, L.W.C.H. was born at IU Health Arnett Hospital in Lafayette, Indiana. After the child's birth, Ruby was asked to complete the Indiana Birth Worksheet. The couple revised each question asking for information regarding the father of the child by replacing the term "father" with the term "Mother #2." All information provided regarding "Mother #2" related to Ashlee, the legal spouse of Ruby who was the birth mother. On January 22, 2015, the Tippecanoe County Health Department issued L.W.C.H.'s birth certificate, which noted only Ruby Henderson as a parent.
The other Plaintiff female, same-sex married couples have had similar experiences as Elizabeth and Tonya Bush-Sawyer and Ashlee and Ruby Henderson and their children. Only the birth mother has been recognized as a parent of the couples' children, and only the birth mother's name has appeared on the birth certificate of the child. Because of this result, the Plaintiffs filed this action and requested declaratory and injunctive relief. They asked the Court to direct the State Defendant to recognize both Plaintiff spouses as a parent of their children and to list both Plaintiff spouses as a parent on their children's birth certificate. They also asked the Court for a declaration that Indiana Code §§ 31-9-2-15, 31-9-2-16, and 31-14-7-1 violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims, and the Court granted the County Defendant's motion, granted the Plaintiffs' motion against the State Defendant, and denied the State Defendant's motion (
The Court entered a permanent injunction enjoining the State Defendant (1) from enforcing Indiana Code §§ 31-9-2-15, 31-9-2-16, and 31-14-7-1 in a manner that prevents the presumption of parenthood to be granted to female, same-sex spouses of birth mothers; (2) to recognize children born to a birth mother who is legally married to a same-sex spouse as a child born in wedlock; (3) to recognize the Plaintiff children in this matter as a child born in wedlock; and (4) to recognize the Plaintiff spouses in this matter as a parent to their respective Plaintiff child and to identify both Plaintiff spouses as parents on their respective Plaintiff child's birth certificate (
A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) "must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The purpose of a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) is to ask the Court to reconsider matters "properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989). "A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment." Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Relief pursuant to a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend is an "extraordinary remed[y] reserved for the exceptional case." Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). A Rule 59(e) motion may be used "to draw the district court's attention to a manifest error of law or fact or to newly discovered evidence." United States v. Resnick, 594 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2010). A manifest error "is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent." Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, "a Rule 59(e) motion is not an opportunity to relitigate motions or present arguments, issues, or facts that could and should have been presented earlier." Brownstone Publ'g, LLC v. AT&T, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25485, at *7 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2009).
The State Defendant asks the Court to modify and clarify the declaratory judgment and permanent injunction. First, it asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enter a declaration or injunction governing enforcement of Indiana Code §§ 31-9-2-15 and 31-9-2-16, concerning whether children are "born in wedlock" or "born out of wedlock." It asks the Court to remove any declaration or injunction directed at these two statutes. The State Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the statutes because the statutes only apply to adoption proceedings, and thus, the Plaintiffs are not injured by the statutes because their alleged injuries do not arise within the adoption context. The State Defendant asserts the challenged statutes simply have no relevance to the Plaintiffs; therefore, they have no standing, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction in this Court.
In one cursory paragraph in its opening summary judgment brief, the State Defendant alleged that the Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the statutes (see
In the Court's summary judgment order, the Court explained that it was convinced by the evidence and argument that the State's regulatory system for creating and issuing birth certificates in the State of Indiana is dictated and implemented by the State Defendant, and thus, the real injury to the Plaintiffs came from the State Defendant's implementation of the statutes (
Because the State Defendant has failed to point out a manifest error of law or fact and seems to simply relitigate its argument from its summary judgment reply brief, the Court
Next, the State Defendant asks the Court to clarify the declaratory judgment regarding the constitutionality of the statutes, whether they are unconstitutional facially or as applied. The Court
The State Defendant also asks the Court to clarify the permanent injunction regarding whether it applies to wives of all birth mothers or only to wives of birth mothers who conceived through artificial insemination by an anonymous donor. Again, the Court
Finally, the State Defendant asks the Court to clarify the permanent injunction regarding whether the presumption of parenthood is conclusive or rebuttable. The Court
For the reasons discussed above, the State Defendant's Motion to Amend Judgment (