XX. Abstention Doctrines

• Library: Sword and Shield: A Practical Approach to Section 1983 Litigation (ABA) (2015 Ed.)

XX. ABSTENTION DOCTRINES

A. Pullman Abstention

A federal court § 1983 action may be defeated by one or more of the abstention doctrines. Under Pullman abstention, named after Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman,⁴¹⁵ a federal court may abstain when the contested state law is ambiguous and susceptible to a state court interpretation that may avoid or modify the federal constitutional issue. Pullman should not be invoked just to give a state court the first opportunity to decide the federal constitutional issue. When a federal court invokes Pullman abstention, the § 1983 claimant must seek a state court interpretation of the state law from the highest court in the state. In some cases, this may be accomplished expeditiously pursuant to a state certification procedure.⁴¹⁶ After completion of state court proceedings, the § 1983 claimant may return to federal court, unless he has voluntarily litigated his federal claims fully in state court.⁴¹⁷The plaintiff may make an "England reservation" on the state court record of the right to litigate the federal claim in federal court.⁴¹⁸

B. Younger Abstention

The most frequently invoked abstention doctrine in § 1983 actions is Younger abstention, named after the leading case of Younger v. Harris.⁴¹⁹ Younger abstention generally prohibits the federal courts from granting relief that interferes with pending state criminal prosecutions, or in some cases with pending state civil proceedings that implicate important state interests.⁴²⁰ In Sprint Communications v. Jacobs,⁴²¹ the Supreme Court recently clarified that Younger abstention is limited to (1) ongoing state criminal prosecutions; (2) state-instituted civil enforcement proceedings; and (3) state civil proceedings uniquely related to the states' ability to perform their judicial functions—for example, a contempt proceeding. The Court in Sprint Communications thus held that Younger abstention does not apply to ordinary civil litigation to settle a dispute between two private parties.

In Middlesex County Ethics Commission v. Garden State Bar Association,⁴²² the Supreme Court stated that three inquiries are relevant to Younger abstention:

1. Is there an "ongoing" state judicial proceeding?
2. Does the state proceeding implicate "important state interests"?
3. "Is there an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges?"

Prior to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Sprint Communications, the lower federal courts commonly considered these three Middlesex factors as dispositive of the Younger abstention issue. The Court in Sprint Communications, however, stressed that the three Middlesex factors are relevant but not necessarily dispositive in determining the applicability of Younger abstention. The Court in Sprint Communications reasoned that Younger should not apply simply because the federal court defendant can identify a "plausible" important state interest. Supreme Court decisional law also holds that when a § 1983 plaintiff seeks only money damages, a federal district court "has no discretion to dismiss rather than stay claims for monetary relief that cannot be redressed in the state proceeding."⁴²³

Younger abstention encompasses state-initiated quasi-judicial administrative proceedings implicating important state interests, so long as there is an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims either in the administrative proceeding or in a state court judicial review proceeding.⁴²⁴

There are very narrow exceptions to the Younger doctrine. The most important exception requires a showing that the state prosecution was undertaken in bad faith, meaning not to secure a valid conviction but to retaliate against or chill the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. There is also an exception when the pending state proceedings fail to afford a full and fair opportunity to litigate the federal claim, but this is rarely found to be the case.⁴²⁵

C. Colorado River Abstention

Under Colorado River abstention, named after Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States,⁴²⁶ a federal court may abstain when there is a "parallel" proceeding pending in state court. However, even when a "parallel" state court proceeding is pending, a federal court should invoke Colorado River abstention only in "exceptional" circumstances. The...