Parsing The Second S.B. 8 Test Case

Felipe N. Gomez v. Dr. Alan Braid

A few moments ago, I wrote about the first S.B. 8 Test Case. It was filed by an Arkansas plaintiff. The second test case was filed by Felipe N. Gomez of Illinois. Gomez is a self-professed "Pro Choice Plaintiff." Indeed, Gomez states that he filed the suit so that the court can declare S.B. 8 unconstitutional.

Plaintiff, a USA citizen (Illinois resident) and "person" as defined in the Texas Hearbeat [sic] Act files this suit against Defendant, MOVES the Court to declare that the Act is Unconstitutional, and in violation of Roe v Wade. . . .

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not violate Roe v Wade, and that the Act is illegal as written and as applied here until Roe v Wade is reversed or modified.

WHERFORE [sic], PLAINTIFF seeks the Court Declare the Act to be illegal as written and/or as applied to the instant facts.

In federal court, such a complaint would lack adversity. If I didn't know better, the suit seems collusive, though I doubt Braid would conspire with this pro-se litigant.

In any event, Braid may try to sue Gomez in federal court. In light of the pleading, that strategy may yield a default judgment. Removal would not fare much better.