Hoye

Hoye v. City of Oakland

Good Law
642 F. Supp. 2d 1029·2009 WL 2392133·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67905
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 4, 2009C 07-06411 CRBCalifornia9,414 words

Opinion

Opinion

Breyer, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Walter Hoye, a pro-life demonstrator, brought suit against Defendant City of Oakland, challenging the constitutionality of Oakland Ordinance No. 12860, which creates an eight-foot buffer zone or “bubble” around people seeking access to reproductive healthcare clinics (“clinics”). Hoye claims that the ordinance is facially unconstitutional, unconstitutional as applied, unconstitutionally vague, and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Now pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

In the city of Oakland, California are multiple clinics which provide reproductive healthcare services to women. Because one of those services is abortion, the clinics have long been the sites of protest over the morality and legality of that medical procedure. Though each protest, like each protestor, is different, there is a long history of protests creating significant barriers to patient access at the Oakland clinics. The executive director of one clinic described the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.