California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/7/10 ORDERING that parties are directed to submit further briefing on additional questions, and any other related issues by 6/18/10. Reply briefs due by 6/24/10. Hearing on the matter is set for 6/30/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Owen, K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / Petitioner California Correctional Peace Officers Association ("CCPOA") has filed a motion to remand, which was heard on June 7, 2010. As the court explained at oral argument, it appears that it v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, a California state agency and DOES 1-50, CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, a California corporation, Petitioner, CIV. NO. S-10-1131 LKK/JFM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER

may be appropriate to enjoin state court proceedings in order to protect the Coleman court's jurisdiction and to effectuate the court's judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283, see also Atlantic Coast

Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 295 (1970) (noting that the distinction between "aid of its jurisdiction" and "effectuate its judgments" exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act is less than clear).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

As neither party has briefed this issue, the court directs the parties to submit further briefing on the following questions: 1. Whether the proceedings in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, No. 2:90-cv-00520 (E.D. Cal.) are, for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, akin to the school desegregation and multidistrict litigation proceedings discussed in, for example, Miller v. Brooks (In re Am. Honda Motor Co.), 315 F.3d 417, 439 (4th Cir. 2003), Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court for Cal., 326 F.3d 816, 825-826 (7th Cir. 2003), Battle v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 877 F.2d 877, 882 (11th Cir. 1989) and United States v. District of Columbia, 654 F.2d 802, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1981). See also Wright & Miller, 17A Fed. Prac. & Proc.

Juris. § 4225 (3d ed.). 2. Assuming that Coleman is such a case, whether CCPOA's CEQA claims would so "frustrate the federal court's effective disposition of" Coleman as to be inconsistent with the continuing exercise of jurisdiction in Coleman. See, e.g., U.S. v. D.C., 654 F.2d at 810. 3. Assuming that this case falls within an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, what procedures govern issuance of an injunction. 4. Assuming that this case falls within an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, whether the availability of an injunction may provide an independent basis for removal, notwithstanding Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

U.S. 28, 34 (2002). The parties may also address any other issue related to the above. The court does not require further briefing on respondent Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's

California

invocation of the federal officer removal statute except insofar as the federal officer removal question relates to the issues enumerated above. Each party MAY file a brief not to exceed twenty (20) pages. Said brief may be filed no later than 5 p.m. on Friday, June 18, 2010. Each party MAY file a reply brief not to exceed ten (10) Hearing on

pages no later than 5 p.m. on Thursday, June 24, 2010.

the matter is SET for 10 a.m. on Wednesday June 30, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 7, 2010.

3