Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet
750 F.3d 776
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Courthouse News Service (CNS), a news wire that reports on newly filed civil complaints, alleges Ventura County Superior Court (through Executive Officer Michael Planet) withheld "unlimited" civil complaints until fully processed, causing delays of days to weeks.
- CNS historically obtained same-day access in many federal and state courts and sought the same in Ventura County; Planet refused citing resource constraints and the need to ensure filing integrity.
- CNS sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court asserting a First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings and requested declaratory and injunctive relief requiring same-day access (with limited exceptions for sealed/TRO matters).
- The district court dismissed under Pullman and O’Shea abstention doctrines, concluding federal adjudication would intrude on state court administration and that state-law resolution (Cal. Gov’t Code § 68150(l)) might avoid constitutional questions.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed abstention de novo (as to legal requirements) and reversed: Pullman abstention is generally inappropriate in First Amendment access cases; O’Shea abstention was also improper because the requested relief would not require an ongoing federal audit of state judicial operations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pullman abstention was appropriate | CNS: First Amendment right of access presents a federal question that should be resolved in federal court; abstention is inappropriate in First Amendment cases | Planet: State-law interpretation of "reasonably accessible" (Cal. Gov't Code §68150(l)) could avoid constitutional ruling and implicates sensitive state interests | Reversed: Pullman abstention improper because First Amendment access claims are of particular federal concern and delay chills speech |
| Whether O’Shea/Younger-style abstention was appropriate | CNS: Relief (declaratory/injunctive requiring same-day access with exceptions) is a discrete, nondiscretionary remedy that need not entail ongoing federal oversight | Planet: Injunction would intrude on court administration and force federal monitoring of state judiciary | Reversed: O’Shea abstention improper; injunction would not necessarily require ongoing federal audit or intrusion into individual case administration |
| Whether CNS alleged cognizable First Amendment injury | CNS: Delayed access prevents timely reporting and thus chills speech of CNS and the public relying on it | Planet: No prosecution/threat; mere delay is not a First Amendment harm | Held: CNS sufficiently alleged an access-based First Amendment injury—the withholding harms news reporting and public discussion |
| Whether relief sought would be unworkable given resource constraints | CNS: Many simple, existing mechanisms (media bins, behind-counter review, limited exemptions) allow same-day access without heavy intrusion | Planet: Resource limits and filing integrity concerns make same-day access infeasible | Held: Court notes feasible remedies used elsewhere and that district court could tailor relief; resource concerns do not justify abstention |
Key Cases Cited
- Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (establishes Pullman abstention where state-law resolution could avoid federal constitutional question)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (limits federal injunctions that would require ongoing federal oversight of state judicial administration)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (recognizes First Amendment-based public access to criminal trials)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (framework for assessing First Amendment right of access to proceedings)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (contextualizes access as essential to free discussion of governmental affairs)
- Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (refuses Pullman abstention in First Amendment access challenge to sealed docket practice)