Harmon v. Department of Finance et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/7/2019. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SANDRA HARMON ,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 18-1021 -RGA

V.

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SUSSEX :
COUNTY, DELAWARE, et al. ,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
1.

Plaintiff Sandra Harmon appears pro se. She commenced this lawsuit

alleging Defendants violated her right to due process and equal protection when her
private property was sold at a Sheriff's Sale on June 19, 2018 . (D .I. 1). On August
20 , 2019 , the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, abstained under the
Younger abstention doctrine, and dismissed as moot Plaintiff's motion for summary

judgment.

(D.I. 23, 24) . Plaintiff moves for reconsideration.

(D.I. 25).

Defendants

oppose. Briefing is complete.
2.

Plaintiff's basis for reconsideration of the August 20 , 2019 Order is that

Younger abstention is not proper because the instant action relates back to Plaintiff's

earlier filing of a related action filed in the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina and removed to this Court in Harmon v. Sussex County, Civ. No. 171817-RGA.1

Plaintiff notes that Civ. No. 17-1817-RGA predates a Delaware state

1 The background is set forth in the August 20 , 2019 memorandum . (See D.I. 23).
1

monition action that denied her motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent a Sheriff's
sale scheduled for June 19, 2018 in Sussex County, Delaware. Conversely,
Defendants argue that Younger is applicable even should this Court consider the
commencement of the earlier-filed South Carolina action as predating the state monition
action.
3.

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors

of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel.

Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 , 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e)
motion ... must rely on one of three grounds:

(1) an intervening change in controlling

law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
[to] prevent manifest injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010).
4.

The Court has reviewed the filings and its August 20, 2019 memorandum

opinion and order. The Court considers the South Carolina removed action separate
and apart from this case . As discussed in the August 20, 2019 Memorandum, the
record reflects that the monitions action in State Court was filed prior to the time Plaintiff
commenced this case.

(0.1. 23 at 2).

The Court conducted its Younger analysis

based on when this case was filed .
5.

In the alternative, even were the Court to consider this case as a

"continuation" of the removed South Carolina action which predated the State monitions
proceeding, state action need not predate the federal action for Younger abstention to
apply. See Tucker v. Ann Klein Forensic Ctr. , 174 F. App'x 695 , 697 (3d Cir. 2006)
(citing For Your Eyes Alone, Inc. v. City of Columbus, Ga., 281 F.3d 1209, 1217 (11th

2

Cir. 2002)).

The United States Supreme Court has held that federal courts are to

abstain if the state action was commenced "before any proceedings of substance on the
merits have taken place in federal court," Hicks v. Miranda , 422 U.S. 332 , 349 (1975) , or
if "the federal litigation [is] in an embryonic stage and no contested matter [has] been
decided ." Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. , 422 U.S. 922 , 929 (1975) ; see also Hawaii Haus.

Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 , 238 (1984) (concluding that the federal action should be
dismissed in favor of the state action if there have been no "proceedings on the merits .
. . in the federal court").

Prior to the abstention and dismissal order, no "proceedings of

substance on the merits" took place in this case and , therefore, it was appropriate to
dismiss the matter in favor of the state action .
6.

The Court finds that based upon the law and the facts , Plaintiff has failed

to demonstrate any of the grounds necessary to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's
August 20 , 2019 memorandum opinion and order where the Court abstained under

Younger and granted Defendants' motion to dismiss.
7.

Conclusion . For the above reasons , the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion

for reconsideration (D.I. 25).

(2~, ?

An appropriate order will be entered.

, 2019

iimington , Delaware

3