Samuel T. Roy, Justice of the Peace v. Benjamin R. Jones, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Supreme stay States Court for a Savage, III, Wiedt, Stuart E. Karl W. May suspension the ing 19th pend-, Savage, Love, Pa., orders Pittsburgh, Finkel & filing petition for a writ of appellants. for certiorari with the United States Su- Frank, Gen., Atty. Frederick N. Asst. preme Court. Justice Brennan denied Pittsburgh, Pa., Creamer, Atty. J. Shane stay September for a on Gen., Harrisburg, appellees. for 19, 1971, petition and no for a writ of KALODNER, Before ALDISERT and seeking certiorari appel- was ever filed ADAMS, Judge. Circuit Pennsylvania late Supreme review of the May Court’s 19th orders and its refusal OPINION OF THE COURT suspension to revoke its orders. ADAMS, Judge. Circuit Instead, appellants commenced this Appellants justices original peace are action the district court on elected, who alleging were and commissioned December Pennsylvania, suspensions Governor of for a were effected without notice six-year expiring term hearing of office on and without a in violation of Monday January, first May 1974. On both the Commonwealth’s “Rules Pro- 19, 1971, they temporarily Governing suspend- cedure Inquiry the Judicial ed from Supreme office and Court of Review Board” and the United Pennsylvania acting upon urged They the recommen- States Constitution.3 dation of the Inquiry (1) enjoin Judicial and Re- district court enforcement apparent view Board.1 Pennsylvania The Supreme cause for Court’s temporary suspensions the leged suspension order, enjoin was an al- and by appellants violation Inquiry of Rule Judicial and Board from Review conducting A of Conduct, hearings subd. making Rules of Of- and further fice Standards and Civil for Pennsylvania Procedure recommendations to the 1. The amended, Conduct, Constitution directs the estab and the Rules of Office given lishment of the Board which is Standards and Civil Procedure for Justices investigate judi alleged exclusive promulgated the Peace were cial discipli Pennsylvania Supreme misconduct and to recommend Court. Petition nary Supreme Squires action to the Pennsylvania, Court. Pa.Const. and Constables of V, Art. Inc., § P.S. 442 Pa. 275 A.2d 657 Supreme Pennsylvania upheld Court of appellants’ 2. At the time of election to of- validity of the Rules. justices fice, peace prohibit- were not working ed from brought for the Commonwealth or This action under U.S.C. § holding political party. office in a was based on 28 U.S. however, Pennsylvania Constitution was C. §§ opinion or- cinnati Bar Association. In an Court.4 findings approved Court of Ohio der dated June Board, principles, recommendations and is- court, “abstention” based Coogan suspension dis- sued the granted order. motion defendants’ F.Supp. failed to seek certiorari from the United the suit. 349 miss for review of the States Although judgment of we affirm brought Instead, he Ohio court’s action. ground court, do so on a we the district original Rights an under the action Civil upon by the dis- relied other than that court, Act.9 in the federal district seek- trict court.5 ing enjoin suspen- to enforcement suspension sion. He claimed that his I. guar- contravened certain constitutional of recitation from a It is clear antees. appellants of case that the the this facts court dismissed the action through sought, the vehicle have the In Circuit affirmed. so Sixth relief, injunctive to for 1983 suit section doing, it offered statement of a succinct engage in have a lower federal court principles: the relevant relitigation essentially constitutes what “Coogan remedy adequate had an by Pennsylvan already of issues decided suspension peti- for of review his Having highest to court. failed ia’s tioning Supreme the Court of pursue only available course for fed United for States a writ of certiorari. determi eral review of the state court’s remedy. He not to chose resort to that of nation —a writ certiorari from Rights “The Civil Act was not de- the United States— signed to be used as a substitute for appellants are now barred right appeal, collaterally or to obtaining judicata principles res from judgment highest attack a final in such review the lower federal courts.6 relitigate court of a state and the is- Angel by the in v. Guided decision sues which it decided. Bullington, 330 U.S. judgment “The final the Su- the federal courts preme Coogan Court is conclusive and litigants may held that not seek to have precluded by ju- the doctrine of res redetermined, by original have actions relitigating only the dicata from courts, already in federal district issues actually issues which were involved adjudica prior settled in a state-court proceeding, the disbarment but also prevailing tion.6 Illustrative might he issues view, case, present and similar to the presented.”10 Coogan Cincinnati Bar Assoc.8 ap- Coogan, indefinitely above, attorney, noted on June As was suspended pellants petitioned the Court of a result of a recommenda- suspension Pennsylvania tion of the on Board Commissioners revoke May 19, Discipline orders of addition and the Cin- Grievances See, g., Crane, Subsequent suspensions, appellants 468 F.2d e. Bricker v. to their 1972) Enterprises, (1st ; formally I. P. Cir. notified of the institution (1st against They Cataldo, charges Inc. v. 457 F.2d formal them. answer- Mfg. Corp., charges, ; hearing ed Cir. Booth Lemont and a before (7th 1971) Woolley prior Cir. Board was scheduled initiation Inc., Lines, v. Eastern Air case. Mertes, (5th 1960) ; Mertes v. Cir. Helvering Gowran, 5. See (3 judge F.Supp. (D.Del.1972) court). appellants sought above, 6. As indicated 8. 431 F.2d 1209 stay from the Court of the 9. 42 § U.S.C. suspension denied, pe- order. It and no was at 1211. 10. 431 F.2d tition for certiorari filed. upon law, pe- ly, contentions based a collateral attack arguments specific judgment. Accordingly,

tition contains court’s the dis- suspension appel- order violated the trict court’s dismissal of this action ' rights. lants’ constitutional must be affirmed.11 Pennsylvania’s denying petition, II. highest necessarily rendered a de- rejecting very The district court decision cision based its merits principles. appellants “abstention” There are federal claims asserted legal have, complaint several doctrines filed Having times, employed forego been under the “absten- court. been content prescribed Thus, securing tion” rubric.12 avenue for classical ab- fed- doctrine,13 principle, stention eral or Pullman for a writ of review — equitable concepts appellants embodied certiorari —the are now different, bringing is, rule14 barred from address what effective- princi court, by application authority springing 1 1. Roolcer There is a line of Supreme ple, substantially the same result from the decision of the Court in reached ju by Fidelity Co., 413, doctrine of res Hooker v. Trust that we resort to the 263 U.S. 149, 44 have also S.Ct. dicata reach here. Other courts 362 g., approach. See, e. holds that a federal taken the Rooker district court without jurisdiction County, 10, already F.2d 12-13 Paul v. Dade 419 redetermine issues cert, litigated prior (5th denied, 1065, Apparent 1969), in a 397 U.S. action. Cir. (1970) ly, Supreme ; allowing 1504, 686 the 90 25 L.Ed.2d Court felt that re- S.Ct. Cir.), litigation Mackay Nesbitt, 412 F.2d 846 courts issues cert, 435, adjudicated denied, 960, 24 90 once 396 U.S. S.Ct. state courts would (1969). usurpation Supreme amount to a L.Ed.2d 425 the Court’s exclusive to review state de Montemuro, questions. terminations of federal Thus See the Conover (Adams, J., (263 (3d 1972) 415-416, 1073, con Court stated at Cir. U.S. 44 S.Ct. 1086 (3d banc, curring) : en Cir. aff’d affirmatively appears “It the bill from Comm, Co., judgment v. Pullman that was in a of Texas rendered Railroad juris- 643, cause wherein the circuit had 312 61 court U.S. involves, typ subject (1941). diction of both “Pullman” matter and the abstention parties; by hearing ically, a that a full was deference federal court had therein; law, judgment respon- that of state with was state-court determinations ques issues, obviating sive to the reach and that it was af- a view to the need to by firmed dimension. Court of the State tions of constitutional Several appeal by plaintiffs. cases, however, upheld on an If abstention have questions jurisdiction federal stated the bill the federal courts where Constitutional actually cause, entirely diversity arose in citizen it was the was based ship, province duty con-,, and no of the state courts- to and where there thus existed them; See, question decide e. their decision whether to be avoided. stitutional g., right wrong, juris- Light City or exercise of Louisiana Power & Co. v. wrong, Thibodaux, If diction. the decision was that 360 79 S.Ct. 3 L. U.S. judgment Hamill, void, did not make the but Ed.2d Hawks v. 288 1058 merely open (1933). left it to reversal or modifi- 53 L.Ed. 610 appropriate timely appel- in an cation or- other cases the Court has proceeding. provided late Unless and until so re- dered abstention where a state has modified, special versed or it would be an effec- determi- review mechanism for the adjudication, [citing questions tive and conclusive nation of of state administrative See, g., cases] law. e. Alabama Public Service legislation Congress, Ry., “Under no Comm. v. Southern (1951) ; court of the United States other than Burford v. this L.Ed. 1002 proceeding Co., Court could entertain to re- Sun Oil 319 U.S. modify judgment (1943). verse or for errors L.Ed. 1424 [citing arguably, ground- are, of that character. statute] To These cases at least appellate do so would be an exercise of ed in somewhat distinct from considerations jurisdiction. possessed Pullman those which underlie the doctrine. strictly original.” the District Courts is Younger Harris, Long Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Beach L.Ed.2d 669 Twp., 1935), this the doctrine ab- court invoked though similar, district Whichever concerns. supra, Pullman, stention, forth applicable, as set how- doctrine abstention might ground court impedi- that a state ever, as an its invocation serves controversy by effectively deter- end the on the merits. ment to decision gov- mining chiropractors were not case, the district' In the Having thus statute. erned “plaintiffs court stated courts, remitted to the been irrepara likely to suffer or are suffered chiropractors for deci- there “submitted earlier,15 a injury.” indicated As ble argued”19 sion, both and briefed and Inquiry hearing the Judicial before These federal claims. state and To scheduled. been Review Board has rejected by the courts. hearing may be con the extent this chiropractors Thereafter, returned continuing proceeding, sidered sought to raise to the district court and Younger underlying would philosophy federal claims that had been same stay its federal court counsel turned in the state court. down course, no con if there were hand. dismissed tinuing procedure,16 doctrine action, holding that: application.17 no has pass- courts have “Since [state] Moreover, of Penn- including raised, ed on all issues having already sylvania construed deprivation under the Feder- claims of question, Pullman abstention Constitution, court, having statute no al this apposite. not would be proceedings, those to review complaint. The must dismiss remedy appeal proper by to the III. the United of Court to invited been has Our attention States.” England of Board v. Louisiana State appeal, held On Court Examiners,18 provides an Medical litigant may result a avoid the interesting comparison with by by reached the district court “reserv- England, approaching it must In case. during ing” federal contentions his to plaintiffs chose here be noted litigation. course of the state originally bring in state their action England although lends And, court. apparent procedures out- It is philosophical support result to England engrafted lined in onto here, some- it embodies us reached im- to insure that the law of abstention legal rests issues and different what plementation of the Pullman doctrine un- different doctrinal somewhat Congressional run mandate. of afoul derpinnings. Co., 212 v. Consolidated Gas Willcox England, group chiropractors of un- brought Court stated in the first suit in the instance right party equivocally seeking injunction that “the of a court, federal plaintiff them, to court where that, applied choose federal to a declaration properly there is a choice cannot be Act vio- Medical Practice Louisiana Recalling pro- denied.”21 its earlier The lated the fourteenth amendment. 4, supra. criminal vent federal interference with state 15. See note proceedings. concurring opinion of See the Kugler, See Lewis v. Stewart, at Mr. Justice S. (“They principles of [the Ct. 746. Younger] applicable to situations are not pending prosecution 11 L.Ed.2d 18. 375 U.S. where is no proceeding is courts at time federal .”). begun. . . Id. at at 463. appear have The considerations which at 464. Id. at Younger emanated, motivated the Court great extent, pre- at 195. 21. 212 to a from desire to plaintiff state tri- when a nouncement, the fact before and mindful „ litigants re- remitting court bunal because federal has to state courts statutory fused, grounds, proceed properly on abstention invoked who might plaintiffs with The here jurisdiction courts his case.25 the federal legislated proceed elected to first “abdication” be deemed an England courts, opportu- responsibility,22 waived the thus nity procedure to “reserve” their claims. for “reserva- federal fashioned Having jurisdiction. The liti- selected forum of their tion” of federal accord, they gant own into himself ordered msut abide finds who may specifi- against will choice. court his cally presentation of feder- his “reserve” judgment of the district court pending court al claims to federal will be affirmed. his state-law state determination of Upon of the state ALDISERT, claims. resolution Judge, (concur- Circuit questions, fed- back into ring) is admitted he . any disposition eral court for I concur in the result reached Thus, Pull- where issues that remain.23 majority, join opin- I but do not ordered, there is avoid- man abstention ion. The district court dismissed the ed complaint principles. on abstention “any litigant conclusion that a who majority judicata, affirms on res what properly invoked the has they ground describe as “a other than District Court consid- Federal upon by that relied the district court.” er be federal constitutional claims can persuaded I am not that the abstention compelled, his consent and without doctrine, upon by relied through own, accept no fault his court, judicata. is divorced from res state court’s determination those judicially developed Abstention is a claims.”24 limiting doctrine action genesis Eng as the Inasmuch under perceive certain I circumstances. perceived land was need to insulate expression the it to be a shorthand encom- passing aspects doctrine from the taint the Pullman several of federal re- “abdication,” (1) its case Pullman-type a straint. In a absten- problem tion,1 where no Pullman is stays the Court its hand questionable. appear It would and retains until the state pro (2) to “reserve” federal claims when court Burford-type acts. a ceeding only abstention,2 a court can arise the Court dismisses 415-416, (1970) ; Bozanich, 22. 82, 375 U.S. at 84 461. S.Ct. 174 Reetz v. 397 U.S. (1970) 788, 90 25 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 68 United 421-422, 23. Id. at 84 S.Ct. 461. Pipe Co., Gas Line Co. v. Ideal Cement 369 415, Id. at 84 S.Ct. at 464. 134, 676, U.S. 82 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 623 7 (1962) ; Clay Ltd., v. Sun Insurance Office Describing England-type litigant as 207, 1222, 363 80 4 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1170 having “right a to return” to the district (1960) ; City of Meridian v. Southern Bell implies strongly court Co., 639, Tel. and Tel. 358 79 U.S. S.Ct. referring England only to cas- 455, (1959) ; 3 L.Ed.2d 562 Albertson v. litigant, es where a because of the absention Millard, Attorney Michigan, General of 345 doctrine, has been sent the federal courts 242, 600, (1953) ; U.S. 97 L.Ed. 983 against to the state courts his will. 375 U. Spector McLaughlin, Co. v. Motor 323 U.S. 422, S. at 84 S.Ct. 101, 152, (1944). 65 S.Ct. 89 L.Ed. 101 1. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 496, 643, Co., 312 61 85 Burford v. Sun Oil U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. 319 U.S. 63 (1941). 971 See also Lake Carriers’ S.Ct. also Asso See MacMullan, ciation v. 406 92 Alabama Public Service Commission v. U.S. S.Ct. (1972) ; Co., 32 L.Ed.2d 341 Askew v. Southern R. Hargrave, (1951) ; Magaziner v. 401 U.S. 28 L. L.Ed. 1002 Monte- S.Ct. (1971) ; muro, 1972) ; Ridge Ed.2d 196 v. Fornaris 468 F.2d 782 Reich- Tool Co., Pittsburgh Bank, man v. National L.Ed.2d 419, 84 at flatly the District 375 U.S. Court.” complaint declares rel. ex Commonwealth deter- 466. See subject court is for state matter F.Supp. (E.D. Levin, Specter England-type absten- An mination. three-judge court, Pa., stages.3 Where two tion envisions a court before filed in federal case is forms. even other Abstention takes Pullman-type decision, ab- state court Wright lists Alan Professor Charles being, the federal into stention comes Younger Harris, staying until its hand court sextet 27 L.Ed.2d 669 proceed- If, after court acts. Doctrines.”5 one of “The Abstention returns, terminate, plaintiff ings of Hart and The editors Wechsler’s deter- make a factual court must federal System, the Federal Federal Courts and whether must decide It mination. category general Ed., prefer 2d presented questions “Judicially Developed Limitations were, they and were not state court. reserved, If Against Entertaining Actions State ju- theory then, res they “B. Ab in which include Officers”6 dicata, may properly dismiss the court The Doctrine”7 Pullman stention: stage It is this second the federal action. Doctrine Equitable The “C. Restraint: gives “England-type” to label Douglas City It is of Jeanette.”8 abstention; category first this stage “equitable than under restraint” rather simply purely Pullman- Younger9 they place “abstention” type abstention. dependence upon leads labels Mechanical separate nomencla The difficulties. us, only the In the had case before we foremost federal ture used America’s stage. appellants came second emphasizes im court commentators the federal court after the state conceptual portance and factual proceedings. need for There was no thus underpinnings than reli of a case rather stage Pullman-type a first abstention. to its attached neat gar- ance label England-type it or Call abstention holding. variety judicata,4 den res it is same to me. Although majority’s discussion Younger dictum, appears find it to be I necessary I do not believe it is to cut necessary to add these observations. terminology suggest so fine as to held that federal courts will England only applies filing of where the ongo- entertain an action to restrain ing precedes the federal action the state ac- plain- proceeding if the federal magic “right tion. I find no asserting opportunity his tiff has expression return” opinion. single contentions constitutional essence of the doctrine is as stated nothing perceive in this state action. I no rea- Mr. Brennan: see Justice “[W]e application of the notion that limits the unreservedly why party, liti- son gating after Younger conceptual of to criminal basis in the state his federal claims Gibson, Berryhill U.S. v. 411 cases. 564, so, although required to do courts 488 L.Ed.2d 93 36 ignore should to the adverse be allowed Court had an un- again in over state decision and start all Sunnen, 4. v. Commissioner (3d 1972) ; Allegheny Airlines, 18 Cir. (1948). 597, 68 Pennsylvania Utility Inc. v. Public Commis sion, (3d ALI 465 F.2d Cir. 237 Cf. Courts, Wright, Law of Federal 1972 C. Study Be of the Division of Jurisdiction Part, 23. Pocket Courts, 1371(d) tween Federal § State and 1371(d) Congress, 1st of 93d § S. 6. At 980. Session, proposed Federal Court Jurisdic tion ofAct 7. At 985. England Louisiana Board Medi- State of 8. At 1009. Examiners, cal 375 9. At 1021. II L.Ed.2d 440 Thus, piece Younger say opportunity one factual that the ra- cluttered complex subject Younger inapplicable of must not become of tionale controlling emphasis this, to the exclusion But the court did not civil actions. important legal principles constitu- do. ting the An exam- rationale of case. Lynch Snepp, I found ple suggestion of this is the (4th 1973), be the most Cir. premises Younger root do not lie point. scholarly discussion this ongoing proceed- where there is no state speaking Circuit, There, the Fourth ing. contemporaneity While the through Judge Craven, applied Younger may extremely state action indeed be arising to a civil action from a state important, factor, this is but one school disturbance: this one factor must not be considered general comity, equi- These ty, notions of in vacuo. federalism, applied since early days of our of States and Union Younger jurisprudential is brew Younger recently most restated and many interdependent principles and tra- highly companion cases, occupy its Judge ditions, which Craven described history important place in our our “general comity, equity, notions future. Their nev- should applied early and federalism since the er made to turn on such labels as days be of our Union of And I States.” rather “civil” or “criminal” but impossible, find it difficult if not to lift analysis competing interests an particular ingredient one from the brew McAuliffe, in each case. Palaio v. could, and then it. if isolate And I I 1972); (5th F.2d 1232-1233 Gir. say impossible dare it would be to divest Wigoda, Cousins v. Cir.) application 463 F.2d 603 ingredi- it from the flavor of the other stay denied, for Thus, presence ongo- ents. if the of ah L.Ed.2d ing critical, proceeding so is (Rehnquist, Circuit Jus- necessity proving entitlement to tice) . injunction. an immediate under- So stood, delightful there is a Catch-22 reading A fair of the district court’s quality about it all: opinion in the discloses case before us Judge approached prob- Scalera Aha, you apply Plaintiff: can’t Judge lem much the same as Craven ongo- Younger, because there is no Snepp. Judge emphasized Scalera ing proceeding. “irreparable injury” test, citing De Vita Sills, 1970); you, Defendant: Aha to sir. If F.2d 1172 irreparable injury said ongoing proceed- there is no great.” must be “both immediate and ing, why you then do need in- Snepp 401 U.S. at re- S.Ct. 746 junction? there to en- What’s grant preliminary versed the in- join? junction plaintiffs because “failed to balance, agree perhaps On while I great irreparable show and immediate way affirming the neatest injury rights that their would not [and] judicata England-res protected via the proceedings. be in the state ” route, . prepared . . I am also affirm Judge strength of his “ir- Scalera concepts equitable fundamental reparable must never be subordinated. harm” discussion.

Case Details

Case Name: Samuel T. Roy, Justice of the Peace v. Benjamin R. Jones, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Aug 28, 1973

Citation: 484 F.2d 96

Docket Number: 72-1737

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.