DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWARE WOMAN CENTER
FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and
PATRICIA B. WINDLE
Defendants.

CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF RANEY'S CLAIMS ON McKUSICK. HOOVER, SAMUELS GROUNDS (Footnote 1)

Defendants AWCC, et al. respectfully move this Court for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 56 dismissing the Complaint of Plaintff, Meredith Raney, on the authority of controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent. There is an "unusually similar" authoritative case from this district that was recently concluded, i.e., McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478 (11 Cir. 1996), on remand, No. 94-1161-CIV-ORL-22 (M.D. Fla. June 26, 1997) (dismissing all Raney-like claims); Hoover v. Wagner, 47 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 1995) (adopted by 11th Cir. in McKusick 96 F.3d at 487-488); following Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 73 (1971).

Any other result would allow the hundreds of anti-abortion obstructionists previously charged criminally or convicted in Florida (such as Raney) to relitigate their criminal misdemeanor cases all over again in this federal court.

There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and as a matter of law, Defendants are entitled to Final Summary Judgment on the Complaint.

(Footnote l) This Motion also moots the overly intrusive discovery requests of Plaintiff Raney which pose realistic security risks to these Defendants who for years have been threatened and under siege by anti-abortion protestors, such as Plaintiff. We also must not forget that it was here in Florida where two abortion doctors and a body-guard were murdered by those who oppose abortion.

Since Raney did not even allege absence of probable cause or show any basis for inferring wrongful intent, his case not only attempts to interfere with the finality of state court criminal judgments, but also fails to make out the barest of any claim on the merits.

Raney does not deny that he was criminally arrested for plainly violating a state court injunction which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in Madsen v. WHC, 512 U.S. 753 (1994), namely the 36 ft. "buffer zone validated on its face in Madsen. Raney's own videotapes of the three incidents, produced in discovery, are the best evidence of his plain violation, probable cause, and an unremarkable arrest. Those videotapes are attached as exhibits to the Memorandum of Law, as is a public record from the State's Attorney showing the magnitude of the contempt convictions of Raney and others for violating the "buffer zone". Mr. Raney would have this Court relitigate each such state case based on an illusionary interpretation of an inapplicable statute, which affords him no protection in this context in any event, since he is not "in a facility". This should not become another class of repetitious non-prisoner-convict cases to flood this Court.

For these reasons, more fully developed in the Memorandum of Law, this Court should grant summary judgement on this core legal question and dismiss the Complaint, with costs and fees to the Defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

ROY LUCAS, ESQ. <signed>
District of Columbia Bar D.C. # 153957
Attorney for Defendants
P. 0 BOX 1433
Melbourne, Fl. 32902-1433
(407) 339-4600

SUSAN A. ENGLAND <signed>
Florida Bar #0186018
Attorney for Defendants
SUSAN A. ENGLAND, P.A.
2805 Lakeview Drive
Fem Park, FL 32730-2007
(407) 339-4600

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT and MEMORANDUM OF LAW have been furnished by U.S. Mail to Christopher F. Sapp, Esq., P.O. Box 1012, Lehigh Acres, FL 33970, this 29th day of May, 1998.

SUSAN A. ENGLAND, P.A.
SUSAN A. ENGLAND <signed>
Florida Bar #0186018
Attorney for Defendants
2805 Lakeview Drive
Fem Park, FL 32730-2007
(407) 339-4600

EXHIBITS TO MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1/ McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478 (11th Cir. Sept. 27, 1996) (opinion invoking abstention and remanding)., 1-A
McKusick v. City of Melbourne, No. 94-1161-CIV-ORL-22 (M.D. Fla. June 26, 1977) (order on remand dismissing civil action)., 1-B

2/ State Attorney's compilation of convictions and recommended sentences for Raney and other anti-abortion obstructionists., 2

3/ Hoover v. Wagner, 47 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 1995) (opinion on abstention adopted by McKusick in Eleventh Circuit)., 3

4/ Affidavit of Patricia Baird-Windle dated May 5, 1998, 4

5/ Probable cause affidavits and arrest reports on Meredith Raney in Melbourne, FL: three (3) asserted in the Complaint., 5

6/ Congressional Conference Committee Report, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Report 103-488, May 2, 1994, describing background of F.A.C.E. statute, especially the nationwide violent protests, arsons, bombings, and harassment of clinics, as well as statutory objectives., 6

7/ Plaintiff Raney's Videotapes of three (3) arrests for violating the "Madsen Buffer Zone," produced by Raney pursuant to Discovery requests, Cassette.