Good.
A Texas woman who was jailed and charged with murder after self-managing an abortion in 2022 can move forward with her lawsuit against the local sheriff and prosecutors over the case that drew national outrage before the charges were quickly dropped, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Drew B. Tipton denied a motion by prosecutors and the sheriff to dismiss the lawsuit during a hearing in the border city of McAllen. Lizelle Gonzalez, who spent two nights in jail on the murder charges and is seeking $1 million in damages in the lawsuit, did not attend the hearing.
Texas has one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans and outlaws the procedure with limited exceptions. Under Texas law, women seeking an abortion are exempt from criminal charges, however.
Starr County District Attorney Gocha Ramirez and other defendants have argued their positions provide them immunity from civil lawsuits.
Rick Navarro, an attorney for the defense, argued that it was “at worst a negligence case” during the hearing. Ramirez has previously told The Associated Press that he “made a mistake” in bringing charges.
Tipton asked Gonzalez’s attorneys whether they could prove the prosecutors knew of the exception.
“What we intend to show is that negligence doesn’t explain this oversight. It is the role and function of prosecutors to be aware of the elements of the statutes that they are charging,” said David Donatti, an attorney with the ACLU of Texas who is representing Gonzalez.
See here, here, and here for some background. Texas Public Radio adds some details.
Starr County District Attorney Gocha A. Ramirez and Assistant District Attorney Alexandria Lynn Barrera filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit in May, citing the legal principle “immunity doctrine.”
The immunity doctrine provides protections to public officials from legal repercussions, but with some exceptions for violations of civil rights.
In the case of Ramirez and Barrera, attorneys for Gonzales said they intend to show that “prosecutorial immunity” cannot be granted in this case, since the allegations fall outside of the county officials’ work as prosecutors.
On Wednesday, a federal judge agreed that discovery was necessary in any case that alleged wrongdoing that wasn’t protected by immunity.
Gonzalez’s attorney’s still must provide proof for their allegations and show intent on the part of Starr County officials.
Lauren Johnson, director of the Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative at the American Civil Liberties Union, represents Gonzalez. She said the ACLU is ready to address the legal claims to immunity raised by Starr County officials in order to continue with the case.
“We’ll be doing some discovery on the question of the immunity claims that the defendants have raised as to the DA’s and prosecutor’s claim that they are not liable,” Johnson said. “Our goal is to continue this fight to the point of trial.”
The lawsuit, which seeks $1 million in damages, claims that officials misrepresented facts to a grand jury and conspired to maliciously prosecute without probable cause.
Garza said outside of federal court that the legal team has information they intend to make admissible in court to prove intent.
“We do have a good faith basis for every allegation that we’ve made, and we anticipate that this limited discovery will get us there,” Garza said.
Sounds pretty clear to me. I presume the judge (a Trump appointee, by the way) can revisit the matter of dismissal if the plaintiffs don’t show sufficient evidence of malice or some other cause to get past the immunity shield. The fact that anyone even passingly familiar with the state’s fanatical anti-abortion laws should be aware that they exempt the mother from criminal charges is a good place to start with the claim that this wasn’t a case of simple incompetence, but I assume the bar is higher than that. I’m eager to see what they have. MyRGV has more.
(Side note, the plaintiff’s name was Lizelle Herrera at the time of her arrest; it’s Lizelle Gonzalez now. Just FYI in case there was some confusion.)