Turner v. City of Boston
760 F. Supp. 2d 208
D. Mass.2011Background
- Turner was charged with extortion in 2008 and convicted in 2010; Council removed him from office on December 1, 2010, effective December 3, 2010.
- In 2009, Boston adopted Rule 40A, authorizing removal of an elected Councillor by two-thirds vote for conduct unbecoming of a member, including felony conviction.
- Turner and fifteen District 7 voters filed suit December 30, 2010, alleging the Council exceeded state-law authority in removing Turner and seeking relief including injunctions and damages.
- On January 25, 2011 Turner was sentenced to three years in federal prison; under Massachusetts law this sentence vacates his seat automatically if still held, creating a vacancy regardless of the prior removal.
- A companion January 14, 2011 Memorandum and Order denied injunctive relief; a February 7, 2011 Memorandum and Order discusses abstention versus certification and ultimately certifies questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and stays the case.
- The court identified unresolved questions of state law about Rule 40A’s authority and whether Rule 40A is civil or criminal, which could affect federal constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to promulgate Rule 40A and remove a Councillor | Turner and voters contend Boston Charter/MA law did not authorize Rule 40A or removal. | City argues Council had authority under Charter and related MA law to promulgate and apply Rule 40A. | Certified to MA SJC; stay in place. |
| Whether Rule 40A is civil or criminal in nature | Rule 40A constitutes a criminal sanction affecting constitutional rights. | Rule 40A could be civil depending on interpretation under state law. | Certified to MA SJC; stay in place. |
| Whether the court should abstain or certify state-law questions to state court | Abstain pending state-law clarification to avoid federal decision on state-law issues. | Certification preferable to abstention to obtain authoritative state-law rulings efficiently. | Certification chosen; case stayed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (abstention when state-law questions may moot federal constitutional issues)
- Harris County Commissioners Court v. Moore, 420 U.S. 77 (1975) (abstention where state constitutional/statutory questions affect federal issues)
- Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291 (1982) (certification as alternative to abstention when unsettled state law may resolve federal questions)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (certification/abstention where state-law interpretation may affect federal claims)
- Rogers v. Okin, 738 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984) (course of action for certified questions in federal courts)
- Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat, 317 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2003) (abstention inappropriate when state-law questions are unambiguous)