Briggman v. Martin, 5:21-cv-00074

Pro se plaintiff David Briggman posts court documents (sometimes unredacted) about his former employer, Nexus Services, on social media.
Two Nexus employees filed criminal complaints alleging Briggman violated Va. Code § 18.2-186.4 (publishing a person’s name/photo/home address with intent to coerce/intimidate/harass).
A magistrate found probable cause on those complaints; it was unknown whether the Commonwealth’s Attorney (Timothy Martin) would prosecute.
Briggman sued Martin (official capacity) and the Attorney General seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of § 18.2-186.4.
Martin moved to dismiss under the Younger abstention doctrine; the court found Younger applicable and that no Younger exception applied.
The court dismissed the federal case without prejudice (pro se plaintiff may return if state remedies prove inadequate).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Younger abstention requires dismissal of federal suit	Briggman sought injunction precluding state enforcement of § 18.2-186.4	Martin argued ongoing state criminal proceedings implicate Younger and warrant abstention	Court: Younger applies; federal suit dismissed
Whether the bad-faith prosecution exception to Younger applies	Briggman claimed prosecutions are part of a campaign to harass and drain him (multiple actions)	Martin noted magistrate probable-cause findings and that charges were initiated by private complainants, not the Commonwealth’s Attorney	Court: No bad-faith showing; exception not met
Whether statute is flagrantly/patently unconstitutional or other extraordinary circumstances exist	Briggman argued § 18.2-186.4 violates First Amendment and is like statutes struck down in other cases	Martin argued statute includes intent element and plaintiff can raise constitutional defenses in state court	Court: No extraordinary circumstances or flagrant unconstitutionality shown; state forum adequate

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1971) (Younger abstention principle)
Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1984) (comity and federalism underpin abstention)
United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2013) (Younger elements to apply abstention)
Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2006) (exceptions to Younger: bad faith, patently unconstitutional, extraordinary circumstances)
Suggs v. Brandon, 804 F.2d 274 (4th Cir. 1986) (bad-faith prosecution requires showing no reasonable expectation of valid conviction)
Ostergren v. Cuccinelli, 615 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2010) (as-applied First Amendment challenge to statute prohibiting publicizing social security numbers)
Sheehan v. Gregoire, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (W.D. Wash. 2003) (challenge to law prohibiting publication of certain officials’ personal information)
Tolbert v. City of Memphis, 568 F. Supp. 1285 (W.D. Tenn. 1983) (extraordinary-circumstances Younger exception where enforcement was selective and harassment-focused)