Wright v. City of St. Petersburg

Filing 15

ORDER denying 6 motion to dismiss. The Defendant shall answer the complaint on or before March 7, 2014. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 2/25/2014. (SN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

BRUCE WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO. 8:13-CIV-2784-T-EAK-AEP

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG,
Defendant.
/

ORDER DENYING MOTION

This cause is before the Court on the Defendant’s motion to dismiss or abstain (Doc.
6) and response thereto (Doc. 10). The Defendant seeks abstention under the Younger v
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) doctrine. The Younger doctrine has been updated by Sprint
Communc’ns, Inc. v Jacobs, No. 12-815, 571 U.S. ___, 2013 WL 6410850 (Dec. 10, 2013),
wherein the Supreme Court clarified that the three factors of Younger, (1) do the proceedings
constitute an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) do the proceedings implicate important
state interests; and (3) is there an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise
constitutional challenges, are not “dispositive” but are factors that are to be considered in
addition to the other factors set out in Sprint before invoking Younger abstention. The new
factors are: “that Younger extends to the three ‘exceptional circumstances’ identified in
NOPSI, [New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U. S. 350,

368 (1989)] but no further.” Id. at *9. These ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist in only three
types of judicial proceedings outlined in NOPSI which ‘define Younger’s scope’ to preclude
federal intervention in the following: (1) ongoing state criminal proceedings; (2) certain civil
enforcement proceedings; and (3) pending ‘civil proceedings involving certain
orders...uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial
functions.’”
Id, at 6.
Having reviewed the motion and response in light of the Sprint case and the previous
Younger doctrine, the Court concurs with the Plaintiff that there should not be any abstention
in this matter. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss or abstain (Doc. 6) be denied. The Defendant
shall answer the complaint on or before March 7, 2014.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 25th day of February,
2014.

Copies to: All parties and counsel of record