918 F.3d 1037
9th Cir.2019Background
- Owners/operators Bill and Mona Herrera (and their company Palmdale Lodging, LLC) renovated a 48‑unit motel in Palmdale; City obtained an inspection warrant, executed it, and later issued a Notice & Order listing ~400 code violations and ordering vacation/abatement.
- The City and County closed the motel and evicted the Herreras; the Herreras allege warrantless search of their residence, being held at gunpoint, and denial of opportunity to appeal or to make repairs.
- The Herreras filed a federal suit (§ 1983 and FHA) seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief; the City concurrently filed a state nuisance/receivership action seeking abatement and receivership of the motel.
- The district court granted the City’s and County’s motions to abstain under Younger: it dismissed declaratory/injunctive claims and stayed damages claims pending resolution of the state nuisance action (with an England reservation).
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Younger abstention in almost all respects but reversed as to the Fourth Amendment § 1983 damages claim (unreasonable search/seizure), holding that claim must be severed and decided in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Younger abstention was appropriate | Herreras: state nuisance action is not the type of civil enforcement that warrants Younger; state proceedings do not provide adequate forum; some plaintiffs not parties to state case | City/County: state nuisance enforcement is a civil enforcement proceeding akin to criminal prosecutions; state has important interests; plaintiffs can raise federal claims in state court; parties’ interests are intertwined | Court: Younger abstention proper as to most claims — state action is a NOPSI civil enforcement proceeding and Middlesex factors satisfied |
| Whether state proceeding implicates important state interests (Middlesex factor 2) | Herreras: public‑nuisance enforcement here does not implicate important state interests | City: enforcing health/safety and nuisance laws is an important state interest | Court: State’s interest in abating nuisances and enforcing codes is important; factor satisfied |
| Whether state proceedings provide adequate opportunity to raise federal claims (Middlesex factor 3), including non‑party family members | Herreras: federal claims irrelevant to nuisance issues; Mona and children not parties so cannot raise claims | City: state procedures (cross‑complaints, general jurisdiction) permit raising federal claims; family interests are closely intertwined with defendants’ | Court: Opportunity exists and parties’ interests are sufficiently intertwined; factor satisfied |
| Whether damages claims would have the practical effect of enjoining state proceedings (ReadyLink practical‑effect test), and whether any claims must be excepted | Herreras: federal damages and declaratory relief are distinct and would not enjoin state action; Fourth Amendment search claim is separate | City: federal relief (injunction, declaratory, many damages claims) would undermine state enforcement and preclude state remedies | Court: Declaratory/injunctive claims and most damages claims (First, Fifth, Fourteenth, Contract Clause, FHA) would have practical enjoining effect — Younger applies; but Fourth Amendment damages claim would not meaningfully enjoin state nuisance proceedings and must be severed and decided in federal court |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (establishes Younger abstention doctrine against federal interference with state proceedings)
- Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (three‑part test for Younger abstention: ongoing proceeding, important state interest, adequate opportunity to raise federal claims)
- Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (NOPSI categories; Younger applies to certain civil enforcement actions akin to criminal prosecutions)
- Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.) (Younger application to declaratory/injunctive vs. damages relief; damages claims often require stay not dismissal)
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (stay can be final for appellate review when it leaves litigant effectively out of court)
- Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (Younger applicable to nuisance enforcement actions closely related to criminal statutes)
- Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (plaintiffs need only an opportunity to raise constitutional claims in state court)
- Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (declaratory relief ordinarily has same practical interference as injunction)
- ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754 (9th Cir.) (practical‑effect test for Younger abstention in civil enforcement contexts)
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.) (Younger abstention inappropriate where federal claim would not enjoin or impede state litigation)