Manuel Vasquez v. Tony Rackauckas, 734 F.3d 1025

Background

Orange County DA (OCDA) filed a public-nuisance anti-gang suit (2009) against the Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang (OVC) and 115 named individuals seeking a broad permanent injunction covering a 3.78 sq. mile "Safety Zone." 32 minors were named.
The Superior Court granted a default injunction against OVC and preliminary injunctions as to certain named adults; OCDA voluntarily dismissed many defendants (including individuals who had contested the injunction) and then OCDA/OPD served the final injunction and a Notice on dismissed persons, threatening criminal contempt for violations.
Four dismissed individuals sued OCDA and OPD under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Orange’s "dismiss-and-serve" enforcement deprived them of procedural due process before subjecting them to the injunction; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief (not a challenge to injunction terms).
After discovery and an 11-day bench trial the district court found Orange deprived plaintiffs of constitutionally required pre-enforcement process and enjoined Orange from enforcing the state injunction against the plaintiff class without adequate hearing procedures; OCDA (Rackauckas) appealed in part and defended on abstention, Rooker–Feldman, Brillhart/Colorado River, and Pennhurst grounds.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part (procedural due process relief against OPD and on federal claim against OCDA) but reversed the district-court judgment insofar as it awarded state-law equitable relief against the DA under Pennhurst; it remanded and left open that Orange may propose constitutionally adequate procedures (or return to state court to add plaintiffs as named parties).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Younger abstention (federal court should decline jurisdiction)	Plaintiffs: federal suit proper because OCDA dismissed them from state case and thus they are not parties to a pending state proceeding	Orange: Younger requires federal abstention to avoid interfering with state anti-gang proceedings	Held: Younger inapplicable; plaintiffs were made "strangers" by OCDA’s dismissal and their interests are not intertwined with remaining state parties, so federal court rightly exercised jurisdiction
Rooker–Feldman (de facto appeal of state court order)	Plaintiffs: challenge is to OCDA/OPD enforcement policy, not to the state-court judgment	Orange: action is an impermissible collateral attack on the state-court injunction	Held: Rooker–Feldman does not bar suit because plaintiffs allege illegal enforcement by prosecutors/police, not legal error by the state court
Procedural due process (whether pre-enforcement process required before applying injunction to nonparties)	Plaintiffs: injunction substantially burdens liberty/interests (movement, association, speech); dismissal deprived them of pre-enforcement adjudication; Mathews balancing demands pre-deprivation process	Orange: had adequate post-deprivation remedies (removal process, intervention, motion to modify, or criminal contempt proceedings); administrative burden of pre-enforcement process would be substantial	Held: Court: plaintiffs have strong liberty interests; membership determinations are fact-intensive and error-prone; OCDA/OPD procedures were unilateral/one-sided; post-deprivation remedies inadequate here; Mathews factors favor pre-enforcement process — enforcement against dismissed plaintiffs without hearing violated due process
Pennhurst/state-law injunctive relief against DA in federal court	Plaintiffs sought relief under California Constitution against Rackauckas	OCDA: Pennhurst bars federal equitable relief against state officials on state-law claims	Held: Pennhurst applies — reversed insofar as district court awarded state-law equitable relief against the DA in his official capacity; federal constitutional relief and relief against OPD remain

Key Cases Cited

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (abstention from federal suits interfering with state prosecutions)
Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal courts lack authority to review state court judgments)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process balancing test for procedural protections)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (limits on federal courts awarding relief on state-law claims against state officials)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 506 U.S. 377 (content-based speech restrictions are presumptively invalid)
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (standing for declaratory/injunctive relief when prosecution threat is genuine)
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (pre-enforcement facial and as-applied challenges and declaratory relief when threat of enforcement exists)
Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753 (scope and limits of injunctions affecting First Amendment activity)