Rice v. Smith

DUBINA, Judgе, F. Circuit Before JOEL THOMPSON, Judge, and MYRON H. Chief ALBRITTON, Judge. District W. HAROLD MEMORANDUM OPINION proceed should as to ahead their claims be- part cause claims the the were State THOMPSON, Judge. H. Chief MYRON court three-judge This which been § pursuant to 28 empaneled U.S.C.A. is I. recently recurring confronted with a issue: now, federal with a chal- how a court confronted Twice this federal court has been apportionment gov- a State lenge to the with a confronted Alabama’s bоdy proceed erning should when State State the House Sen- addressed, poised or appear courts have groups plain- ate. In 1992 and two address, challenge. also an im- group plaintiffs tiffs —a of African-American directly portant implicates issue because group Republicans brought and a two — federal-state relations. legislative apportion- challenging lawsuits stayed ment.2 The federal court аnd eventu- lawsuit, plaintiffs John (Rice ally dismissed the cases favor aof State plaintiffs) plaintiffs Camilla Rice court (Thompson consent decree.3 Thompson, plain- et al. tiffs) challenge apportionment plan later, years plain- Four the Rice Legislature.1 They Alabama’s State claim lawsuit, brought tiffs federal current es- plan impermissibly impinges that the in sev- sentially challenging ways equal protection eral on thе clause of adopted in the 1993 court consent de- the fourteenth amendment: it violates the again, cree. We our hand finding person-one principle, vote it dilutes the appeared that it that the State which court voters, strength voting of non-black and it is had entered 1993 consent decree was still a product gerrymandering. of racial The available to consider the Rice chal- Secretary defendаnts are the of State of lenge. plaintiffs The presented then Judge Alabama and the Probate of Lee court, which, their claims to the State after (State defendants), County, Alabama and the schedule, setting aggressive trial found representatives of plaintiff named a class of claims be without merit. The Rice parallel African-American voters plaintiffs appealed have now the State court (Sinkfield defendants). proceeding Supreme to the Alabama Court.4 proper Jurisdiction is under 28 U.S.C.A meantime, In the and before the State 1331,1343. §§ trial, plaintiffs conducted its the Rice 26, 1997, At on oral November amended their complaint federal court to add we contended that Thompson parties.5 stay as to their claims be- stated, cause, although important As the State trial issue for us court has ad- proceed how to on dressed аnd the yet Thompson plaintiffs’ Court has to hear appeal. in light claims Thompson plaintiffs contended we recent events State court. 1. dispute Some of the brought defendants whether in which entered con Thompson plaintiffs properly were added to this adopting reapportionment plan sent decree litigation. Thompson plaintiffs were added Bennett, legislature. the entire State Sinkfield plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to the Rice to Fed- 13, 1993). (Aug. civil no. action 93-689-PR A eral Rule Civil Procedure question then arose as to whether the State court intervening pursuant to Federal Rule Civil plan. adopt had We certified the By referring Procedure 24. question to the Alabama "plaintiffs,” we should under- Hobbie, answered in the affirmative. Brooks v. dispute stood to have resolved this in this memo- (Ala.1993). 631 So.2d 883 We then dismissed opinion today. randum proceedings. 2. two Camp, These federal lawsuits are Brooks (M.D.Ala.), civil action no. 92-T-364-N and Pe 4. State defendants’ submission of documents Folsom, ters v. civil action no. 93-T-124-N parallel proceedings, filed in filed in (M.D.Ala.). this court December 1997. initially stayed

3. This court ground process that the had not Order, September meantime, run its course. In the a state ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‍ lawsuit Quacken exceptional. disfavored and thus II. 706, 716, bush v. Ins. Allstate A. (1996) 135 L.Ed.2d 1 Emison, the United States In Growe (“We acknowledged have often that federal Court held that courts a strict exercise ... to consideration of dis “required defer upon conferred that is them State, involving redistricting where the putes River, Congress.”); 424 at Colorado U.S. through legislative (“The 813, 96 1244 S.Ct. at doctrine of ab political highly that task begun to address stention, may which a District under Court 25, 38, 113 S.Ct. 507 U.S. itself.” postpone to exercise decline exercise (1993) (emphasis origi L.Ed.2d 388 122 jurisdiction, extraordinary of its is an nal). “prefer[] Federal are to both exception narrow to the of a District agents to courts as branches state adjudicate controversy properly to Court 34, 1081 apportionment.” Id. at 113 S.Ct. at it. to obligation Abdication original). (emphasis in The Court based justified decide can be under this doc cases holding abstention doc doctrine —the exceptional trine in the circumstances origins principles оut of trine —whose arise parties repair where the to order to over half a federalism and reach back centur clearly impor the State court would serve an y.6 explained The Court has “re interest.”) countervailing (quoting tant Alle deferral, causing a federal court to quired Co., gheny County v. Frank 360 Mashuda hands,’ ‘sta[y] its when a constitutional issue 185, 188-89, 1060, 1062-63, 3 pre be mooted or in the federal action will (1959)). reappor L.Ed.2d But in 1163 posture following con sented different context, parallel pro when 32, Id. of the state-court ease.” at clusion exist, ceedings the decision refrain from (quoting at 1080 Railroad Comm’n hearing litigant’s claims be the 501, 496, 312 U.S. Texas Pullman routine course. (1941)). 971 It 61 85 L.Ed. S.Ct. behind this distinction lies in rationale allowed abstention “when the federal ac inherently greater interest a has in questions raises difficult of state law legislative reapportionment. As the Court important policy, matters of state bearing on Growe, explained in “the Constitution leaves jurisdiction has been or when federal invoked primary responsibility with the States proceed criminal ongoing to restrain state congressional of their federal (citing Id. River ings.” Colorado Water Con at and state districts.” 507 U.S. States, Dist. servation v. United evidence,” 34, 113 “Absent S.Ct. at 1081. 814-817, 1244-1246, S.Ct. continued, these “that state branches (1976)). L.Ed.2d perform duty, a federal will fail However, reap within the affirmatively abstention neither obstruct court must in an portionment important permit differs nor liti context contexts, impede it.” also respect gation from that in other for it Id. See be used (Ala. Hobbie, unique within 631 So.2d 889-90 marks a burden shift the doc Brooks 1993) contexts, (“Redistricting is both a trine. In other a federal court’s sensitive political dispute There is no issue. decision decline to exercise Indeed, staying litiga- rejected while federal court some commentators singular Although "[I]t use of an abstention doctrine: tion. doctrines,’ Growe, precise to to 'abstention more refer 507 U.S. at 32 n. differentiated distinguishable there are lines of since several abstention and defer- 1080 n. between cases, situations, involving ral, factual dif- different and other authorities have the lower courts procedural consequences, policy differеnt ferent de- the term continued to use "abstention” considerations, arguments See, Eu, and different e.g., scribe both actions. Benavidez validity.” Wright against their 17A Charles Alan (9th Cir.1994) (distinguishing F.3d 832-33 Miller, & Arthur R. Federal Practice and Proce- ab- abstention” and "dismissal between "deferral § ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‍dure at 25. stention”); Wright, A. Arthur R. Charles 17A Cooper, Practice Miller & Edward H. Federal broadly We use term "abstention” to refer 1997) (2d Supp. § at 1 ed. and Procedure only to the hear- decision tо "abstain” from dismissal, ("to terminology be con- change now would plaintiff's requiring ing a but fusing clarifying.”). parallel also to the decision to "defer” legislature responsibility has the initial act the merits8 —but the United States However, rejected expressly ... in the Court such an matters act, when it wrote: “We to see respon- fail event the fails speed (cita- appellate relevance of the review. sibility judiciary.”) shifts requires only that [Precedent] omitted). tions also focused on adopt agencies a constitutional ‘within practical universal factor in favor of the more ample [upcom- ... time to be utilized in the abstention, request- “the of the relief nature ing] require appellate election ... It does not ed,” Growe, 507 U.S. at S.Ct. at prior review to the election.’” “can and observed a State (citations 113 S.Ct. at 1081 set of districts.” Id. omitted). The Rice further note that the Alabama Court could re- B. the verse State court decision and find that Relying principles, on these this court the State court was without from stayed proceedings twice deferred or however, argument, the start. This is a com- in proceedings favor of State court in which pelling why reason as to the dismissal the a challenge legisla- there was to Alabama’s plaintiffs’ prej- Rice claims should be without 1993, apportionment. tive when the fed- udice, which we will do. stayed eventually eral court dismissed original challenging ap- the two cases State regard Thompson plain With portionment, claims, it relied on Growe. And more again tiffs’ we believe we should take 1997, recently, in the fall of stay when we our instructions from Growe and our claims, First, plaintiffs’ by ruling on the Rice we hand. on merits of the the plaintiffs’ in again expressly Rice constitutional claims rеlied on Growe. time fashion, ly the court State has indicated not plaintiffs The Rice we admit that only willingness challenges entertain cannot consider their claims the face the redistricting plan, Alabama’s also its but abil Relying State court decision on their claims. ity exigent to resolve such claims in an man Growe, however, they stay, on ask that we ner. The United States Court has dismiss, claims. We cannot clear “Absent made evidenсe that the[] agree. adjudi Because the court State perform state branches will fail [the claims, cated the merits of their both res redistricting] duty,” a federal court should judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine interject into itself the State’s matter. preclude this court’s review of that decision.7 Growe, 34, 507 U.S. at S.Ct. 1081. plaintiffs argue that because the it is Thompson plaintiffs While true that the potentially Court could by not had thеir claims resolved fail grant timely appeal, review their State we are convinced that the State this court should retain so willing court or able to hear such claims. provide them with a forum which to obtain Indeed, the court Thomp State offered substantive review of the State court deci plaintiffs opportunity son to intervene in only sion. Not does this contra plaintiffs’ proceedings, but vene the above-stated Rooker-Feldman doc Thompson plaintiffs do declined to so. We trine —under which why of no know reason State would Supreme Court can proceeding entertain a plaintiffs’ not still entertain the Thompson modify reverse judgment or a State court claims.9 original jurisdic- District courts are courts of to intervene in courL 7. tion; only Court can entertain a proceedings. The Rice have taken is- proceeding modify to reverse sue whether the State court was judgment Fidelity on the merits. Rooker v. Trust posture stay that warranted our and whether 413, 149, L.Ed. Appeals we had the to issue a directive to (1923); District Columbia Court party as to what do in another Feldman, premature Whether our decision earlier (1983). L.Ed.2d 206 longer authorized is an we need issue no reach because the Rice did intervene and the

8. Id. ruled has now on their claims. Moreover, August In the order August entered on we since our order of hand, only "stayed” changed our we "directed” the calculus has to make Growe deferral tions, 11, 1997; Second, at oral filed November defendants stated the State request refutation from argument, evidentiary without to. schedule an by us in plaintiffs, 1997; that a decision hearing, filed November Sink- Thompson plaintiffs prob- would favor of the field defendants’ motions dismiss and/or plan, in- ably impact the remainder of the pleadings, motions for on the filed part addressed the State cluding the 9, 1997, July October October “can one set of recently. Alabama 1997, November It is further OR- districts.” ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‍DERED that Sinkfield defendants’ mo- at 1081. for leave to their second tion withdraw mo- finally, having participated dismiss, Third and September tion to reapportionment plan and of the creation granted. having recently heard evidence as disposi- It is further ORDERED that the сonstitutionality plan, the State following stayed pur- motions are Thomp- equipped is far handle the better general today: stay suant to the issued son well as those State defendants’ motion for an order to outcome of litigant future interested why cause show the Sinkfield defendants proceedings. factor reinforces dismissed, not be filed November to the State conclusion that we should defer 1997; the State motion for sum- defendants’ court.10 25, 1997; mary judgment, November filed appropriate An will be entered. Legislative the Permanent Committee’s mo- defendants, to intervene as filed Novem- ORDER 7,1997. ber opin- with the In accordance memorandum date, ORDER, ion this it is the entered on ALBRITTON, Judge, concurring. District JUDGMENT, DECREE of the court: and clarify my I in view write concurrence to claims of John and 1. The case, nature of action in this the limited our L. Rice are dismissed with- Camilla opinion avoid future citation of our as and to prejudice; out propositions for are not in- precedent is the claims 2. This case as to tended. Thompson, et al. have asked the The Sinkfield defendants following It is further ORDERED that litigation throughout the of this course plain- as moot: the Rice motions are denied party challenge hold that a who wishes to to certification, May tiffs’ motion for class filed constitutionality legislativе of a state’s 2, 1997; plaintiffs’ Rice motion for a districting or congressional 2,1997; preliminary injunction, May filed court as first take the case to a state must motion for reconsideration In to a action. then- prerequisite federal August order of filed court’s scheme, only the state court proposed when 1997; August motion expeditiously may act the claim then fails to defendants, filed Oc- dismiss the Sinkfield brought to federal court. While footnote 24, 1997; tober motion majority correctly opinion states 10 of supplement complaint, filed amend and issue, reach I believe that 24, 1997; that we do not plaintiffs’ motion October footnote, explanation, discovery requests for sanc- without more compel and added). stated, argu- original (emphasis At oral clearly appropriate. As the State court in ment, only suggested reaffirmed over the the Sinkfield dеfendants has not Growe, plan, legislative logical and re- it has entertained a federal under a extension of as- required almost identical to those now solved claims to abstain in favor court is Thompson plaintiffs. ongoing pending serted even if there is no or courts being eligible proceeding. Before court, Growe, according to the Sinkfield relief in defendants, the United States In plaintiff be able a federal must required courts "to defer stated that federal sought or she relief in State disputes redistricting that he first involving show consideration State, judicial the State failed to entertain his through legislative court and or where the branch, its We political all or manner. do begun highly her claim at has address reach this issue. U.S. at S.Ct. at 1080 task itself.” 507 significant applied judicial might highly more credence to the Sinkfield’s when lend only I defer proposition simply way than is due. would There no branch. is existing judicial branch can be said to “ha[ve] had would not abstain because the Plaintiff begun” to act is a unless there case not first suit in state court. in a state court which has over the issue. In Growe the said: context, case, therefore, court’s action in this required has con- to defer way suggest not be in taken to disputes involving sideration of redistrict- person that a who wishes to raise a constitu- state, ing through where the challenge congressional legisla- tional judicial begun to address must file a new tive districts first lawsuit political highly task itself. some court. have deferred to We at 1080 begun state court which “has address” (emphasis original). constitutionality legisla- issue of of state quite state’s is Deferring to the tive districts under the 1990 census. That is requiring party from to first seek different the issue which was the state ongo- relief a state court when there is no juris- and that that it held retained ing legislature, case. There is judgment.3 diction the case to enforce its appor- primary responsibility it has the argue The Plaintiffs that deferral districting.1 Only tionment and in the ab- appropriate in this ease because it action does sence they state court’s itself that in, question come and then the branch arises being unconstitutional. There to which will act.2 state court appeal was no from the court in 1993 requires Growe deferral when the because there was a consent decree. The ” begun state “has address the issue. De- say parties Plaintiffs justi- ferral to the branch can be plan to an consented unconstitutional and proposed legislation if fied even no they, non-parties the consent de- time, at the legislature’s because con- cree, plan should able to area, tinuing duty in this and of the because now in federal court. legislature’s any freedom act on issue at agree I with the Plaintiffs that Growe does any time. This is so with the prohibit this considering court from generally cannot act unless challenge, and we not held that it does. appropriate someone first files suit in prudent, We have found it to be and require- some court. This makes Growe’s federalism, govern- concept ment of a branch furtherance of the deferral to of state however, begun” ment which “has particular address the issue to defer under cir- course, giving Of . primary re- See lion. 507 at U.S. 113 S.Ct. sponsibility districting required by any (referencing Supreme for is not 1077 fact that "Minnesota provision. appointed federal law or may A Special Redistricting Constitutional state Panel many (composed appellate judge choose another method. Indeed of one and two dis- case.”). attempt preside judges) states chosen such a method in spe- trict over A (as depoliticize possible) may duplicative much as litigation cialized court avoid Kubin, level, Jeffrey districting. See C. Case The and also could avoid the resent- Commissions, Redistricting judge 75 Tex. L.Rev. 837 ment sometimes arises when a elected (1997) (discussing adopted single by 17 states which have circuit’s takes voters action which commissions, redistricting and the various forms the entire affects state. take). may Apparently those commissions apparently 3.Florida state courts dealt with the being the idea of a commission is problem multiple throughout suits the state neighboring considered in Alabama’s state of having supreme jurisdic the state court retain Waas, George Florida. See and Process Apportionment See In Appearing tion. rе Law LegislativeReapportionment Politics and Redis- E, Special Appor Senate Joint Resolution 1 1982 Constitution, tricting under the 18 Flonda Nova Session; Non, Constitutionality Vel 414 (1994). L.Rev. 1034-35 (1982) ("we So.2d 1052 retain exclusive apparently specialized 2. At least one state uses a to consider and all future court, three-judge court, three-judge relating validity similar to [sic] of this reappor- apportionment plan”). when a court must redistriсt or

1443 court, trial with agree Those circum to defer cumstances of case. adopted possibility appellate are that state court of its stances review deci- challenged facts, absence of those sion. In the either of applied legal principles to be enunciated new hearing I have favored constitu- would cases, in what specifically tional attack on consent decree entered to as “race-based” district- has been referred by the state court. do not believe that this — U.S.-, Johnson, v. ing. See Abrams going court’s decision be viewed as (1997); 1925, 138 Bush 285 117 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d and, that, therefore, beyond Vera, v. 517 U.S. 116 S.Ct. I concur. Hunt, (1996); Shaw v. L.Ed.2d (1996); 135 L.Ed.2d 207 116 S.Ct. Johnson, 115 S.Ct. v. U.S. Miller (1995); 132 L.Ed.2d 2431, 132 Hays, Reno, (1995); and Shaw L.Ed.2d 125 L.Ed.2d (1993). This court determined that because preferable ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‍it would be for the of court opportunity review its to have an Plaintiff, SLUGOCKI, Albert light of the new decisions, appellate аvailable review Court, possibly

the Alabama America, By STATES UNITED Supreme Court of the United States. Through its DEPARTMENT LA OF in the state BOR, The Rice Plaintiffs intervened OF COM OFFICE WORKERS’ say They at our direction. now PROGRAMS, DIVISION PENSATION in- without to direct that we were FEDERAL COM OF EMPLOYEES’ may, Be that as it no motion tervention. PENSATION, Defendant. the in- reconsideration was filed here before No. 96-7105-CIV. tervention, has acted. dismissing we are the claims Since United States District plaintiffs, they appellate free to seek S.D. Florida. review of our decision defer. Sept. to inter- Plaintiffs are free determi-

vene case seek constitutionality of the

nation there of the districts,

plan ap- relates their

pellate If the necessary. review available if or unwilling

state court is unable to entertain claims, or if the appeal should hold the Rice that the County Montgomery Court of did Circuit jurisdiction over then I prepared proceed in

would be to let the ease course, subject, of to consideration ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‍defenses, including motions and laches.

the defense of emphasize

I wish to that it is because

(1) a state court has that it has retained held reappor- over the state census, based on the 1990

(2) very changes substantial were made Court of the United States governing legislative reapportion-

the law adopted,

ment after that

Case Details

Case Name: Rice v. Smith

Court Name: District Court, M.D. Alabama

Date Published: Dec 19, 1997

Citation: 988 F. Supp. 1437

Docket Number: Civil Action 97-A-715-E

Court Abbreviation: M.D. Ala.