SHANE M. GATES, Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
RODNEY JACK STRAIN, Sheriff, in his official and individual capacity; WALTER P. REED, District Attorney, in his official capacity; CHARLES M. HUGHES, JR., Attorney; NATHAN MILLER, Sheriff Deputy; ROGER GOTTARDI, Sheriff Deputy; BRIAN WILLIAMS, Sheriff Deputy; PHILIP DUIETT, Lacombe Nurse, Defendants - Appellees SHANE M. GATES, Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
RICHARD SWARTZ, Judge; NICHOLAS F. NORIEA, JR., Assistant District Attorney; MARIE-ELISE PRIETO, Clerk of Court - St. Tammany; JEFF LANDRY, Louisiana Attorney General; RONALD GRACIANETTE, Assistant District Attorney; KATHY SHERWOOD, Captain; KATHRYN LANDRY; RODNEY STRAIN, St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Office Sheriff, also known as Jack Strain; ST. PAUL FIRE; MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY; WALTER P. REED, Defendants - Appellees
Appeal
from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana USDC Nos. 2:07-CV-6983; 2:13-CV-6425
Before
KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Shane
Gates was arrested by the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's
Office in 2006. In 2007, he filed this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging that the arresting officers used
excessive force and that he was being prosecuted in bad
faith. The case has been stayed since 2008 pending the
resolution of the underlying state criminal charges. He was
acquitted of aggravated flight, a felony, in 2012, and the
state then sought to pursue prosecution on the remaining
misdemeanor charges of resisting arrest and driving while
intoxicated. Gates then fled St. Tammany Parish, and has not
appeared for trial on those charges. Gates moved in the
district court to lift the stay for the purpose of entering
an injunction preventing the state from prosecuting him for
the pending misdemeanor charges. The state moved to lift the
stay for the limited purpose of dismissing the case with
prejudice for failure to prosecute. The district court
determined that Younger abstention precluded an
injunction, and dismissed the case with prejudice. We affirm.
I.
On
November 16, 2006, plaintiff-appellant Shane Gates was pulled
over and arrested by deputies of the St. Tammany Parish
Sheriff's Office. According to the police report, Deputy
Nathan Miller signaled to Gates to pull over after observing
Gates's vehicle swerve repeatedly while driving on
Interstate 12. The report indicates that Gates then
accelerated to 104 miles-per-hour in an attempt to flee
before finally pulling over. Gates then opened his car door
and fell to the ground. Deputy Miller attempted to move Gates
away from the shoulder of the interstate, but, according to
the police report, Gates began to wrestle with Miller. Miller
then held Gates down on the hood of his patrol car while
waiting for backup. A few minutes later, Deputies Gottardi
and Williams arrived. Gottardi advised Gates that he was
under arrest and attempted to place him in handcuffs. The
report indicates that Gates then began flailing his arms, and
that Deputy Miller administered a one-second burst of pepper
spray to stun Gates and enable the deputies to handcuff him,
which they did. While Gottardi attempted to place Gates in
the back of Williams's patrol car, the report states that
Gates threw his head and body back against Gottardi. Gottardi
took Gates down to the ground, causing Gates's face to
strike the asphalt and resulting in a one-half inch
laceration near his left eye. Gates was transported to the
emergency room for treatment. According to the police report,
medical records from the emergency room indicate that
Gates's blood-alcohol level was .273 at the time he was
admitted.
Gates's
arrest report cites the following offenses: driving while
intoxicated, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, open
container in a motor vehicle, aggravated obstruction of a
highway of commerce, and resisting an officer. He was later
also charged with aggravated flight from a police officer. In
2007, Gates filed in federal district court a § 1983
suit alleging that the deputies used excessive force in
arresting him and that he was being prosecuted in bad faith
in state court. He sought damages and an injunction
preventing his prosecution in state court.[1] That action was
stayed in 2008, pending resolution of the underlying criminal
charges against Gates. The action was reopened in 2012 after
a state-court jury found Gates not guilty of aggravated
flight, but then stayed again after the district court became
aware of still-pending misdemeanor charges including driving
while intoxicated and resisting an officer. The misdemeanor
charges were originally set for trial on August 31, 2012, but
the trial was continued due to Hurricane Isaac. Gates was
then ordered to appear on November 22, 2013, to be served
with a new trial date. When he failed to appear, an
attachment was issued for his arrest. He has failed to appear
before the state court since, and his whereabouts are
unknown, even to his counsel.
On
October 20, 2016, defendants filed a motion in the district
court requesting that the stay be lifted for the limited
purpose of allowing Gates to appear for service for his
misdemeanor trial and that, should he fail to appear, his
§ 1983 action should be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P.
41(b) for failure to prosecute. On December 14, 2016, the
district court denied the motion, but ordered Gates to file,
no later than January 23, 2017, a motion explaining why the
Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, and related
abstention doctrine did not preclude his request for an
injunction. The district court warned that failure to file
such a motion would result in dismissal of his case with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). On January 23, 2017, Gates
filed a motion asking the district court to lift the stay and
enter an injunction preventing defendants from prosecuting
him for the pending misdemeanor charges. Defendants then
filed their own motion asking the district court to lift the
stay and dismiss Gates's case with prejudice for failure
to prosecute. After a hearing, the district court denied
Gates's motion and granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice. Gates timely appealed.
II.
Gates
first contends that the district court erred by not enjoining
the state from prosecuting him for the pending misdemeanor
charges. We review both the denial of a motion for a
permanent injunction and an abstention ruling for abuse of
discretion. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Earle, 388
F.3d 515, 518 (5th Cir. 2004) (abstention ruling); St.
Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 332 F.3d 304, 308
(5th Cir. 2003) (denial of motion for permanent injunction).
However, we review de novo both a district
court's legal determination regarding the applicability
of the Anti-Injunction Act, United States v.
Billingsley, 615 F.3d 404, 409-10 (5th Cir. 2010), and
"whether the requirements of a particular abstention
doctrine are satisfied, " Tex. Ass'n of
Bus., 388 F.3d at 518 (quoting Nationwide Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 283 F.3d 650,
652 (5th Cir. 2002)).
The
Anti-Injunction Act provides that "[a] court of the
United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings
in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of
Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or
to protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2283. Section 1983 is an express authorization from
Congress permitting federal courts to enjoin state
proceedings in order to protect federal rights. See
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 242-43 (1972). However,
§ 1983 does not "qualify in any way the principles
of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a
federal court when asked to enjoin a state court
proceeding." Id. at 243; see also Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-47 (1971). Under the
Younger abstention doctrine, federal courts should
generally decline to exercise jurisdiction when: "(1)
the federal proceeding would interfere with an 'ongoing
state judicial proceeding'; (2) the state has an
important interest in regulating the subject matter of the
claim; and (3) the plaintiff has 'an adequate opportunity
in the state proceedings to raise constitutional
challenges.'" Bice v. La. Pub. Def. Bd.,
677 F.3d 712, 716 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Middlesex Cty.
Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S.
423, 432 (1982)).
Where
those three criteria are satisfied, a federal court may
enjoin a pending state-court criminal proceeding only if: (1)
the state-court proceeding was brought in bad faith or to
harass the federal plaintiff; (2) the federal plaintiff seeks
to challenge a state statute that is "flagrantly and
patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in
every clause, sentence, and paragraph, and in whatever manner
and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it,
" or (3) where other "extraordinary
circumstances" threaten "irreparable loss [that] is
both great and immediate." Younger, 401 U.S. at
45, 53-54; accord Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415,
432-33 (1979).[2]
Here,
the district court correctly determined that the three
criteria that generally require Younger abstention
are satisfied. First, Gates requested that the district court
enjoin his pending state-court criminal proceeding. The
federal proceeding would therefore clearly interfere with an
ongoing state judicial proceeding. Second, the underlying
state proceeding concerns the enforcement of state criminal
laws, something in which the state has a strong interest.
Third, Gates can raise his challenges to the state criminal
proceedings in state court. To the extent that Gates argues
that he has been unsuccessful or is likely to be unsuccessful
in raising his constitutional claims in state court that is
irrelevant. The relevant question is whether the would-be
federal plaintiff has the opportunity to raise his
federal claims in state court. See Moore, 442 U.S.
at 425 ("[T]he federal court should not exert
jurisdiction if the plaintiffs 'had an
opportunity to present their federal claims in the
state proceedings.'" (quoting Juidice v.
Vall, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977))); id. at 425-
26 ("Certainly, abstention is appropriate unless state
law clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional
claims."). Gates does not contend that he cannot
raise his constitutional claims in the state court.
Accordingly, Younger abstention precludes an
injunction here unless one of the three narrow exceptions
applies.
Gates
contends that the state prosecution has been taken in bad
faith or that other extraordinary circumstances warrant
enjoining the state criminal proceedings. Specifically, he
argues that: (1) his prosecution for resisting an officer was
instigated by the parish's insurer, St. Paul-Travelers
(whom former district attorney Walter Reed privately
represented and from whom he derived personal financial
benefits, which Gates argues amounted to a Hobbs Act
violation), in order to preclude § 1983 liability for
excessive force; (2) prosecution for the pending misdemeanor
offenses would constitute double jeopardy; and (3)
prosecution would violate state and federal speedy-trial
laws. We agree with the district court that Gates's
...