Horowitz et al v The Honorable Michael D. Mason et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 11/17/2015. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
ELIZABETH HOROWITZ, et al.
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 15-3478
:
MICHAEL D. MASON, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking,
in part, to enjoin a civil contempt order issued by the Circuit
Court
for
Montgomery
County.
(See
ECF
No.
1).
Named
as
Defendants are Judge Michael D. Mason, of the Circuit Court for
Montgomery
County,
Sgt.
Shannon
Songco,
Deputy
Sheriff
of
Montgomery, and attorneys Maury S. Epner and Patrick J. Kearney.
Plaintiffs
also
purported
motion
attached,
for
a
but
did
temporary
not
file
restraining
separately,
order
to
a
their
complaint, requesting a hearing be held on Wednesday, Nov. 18.
(ECF No. 1-1).
For the following reasons, no hearing will be
held because Plaintiffs have not shown any grounds for issuance
of emergency injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs purport to allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against all defendants, arguing that all were acting under
color of law because they acted pursuant to the Maryland Rules
of Civil Procedure and that the contempt order violates their
constitutional
rights
under
the
Fourth
and
Fourteenth
Amendments.
“Federal courts . . . have no more right to decline the
exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that
which is not given.”
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134
S.Ct. 584, 590 (2013) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
However, the Supreme Court has recognized limited
exceptions where exercising jurisdiction would inappropriately
interfere with state-court proceedings.
See New Orleans Public
Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350,
364 (1989) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).
The
Supreme Court has held that Younger abstention applies in three
types
of
“certain
proceedings:
civil
“ongoing
enforcement
proceedings
involving
furtherance
of
the
judicial functions.”
criminal
proceedings;”
certain
state
state
orders
courts’
and
.
.
ability
prosecutions;”
“pending
.
to
civil
uniquely
perform
in
their
Jacobs, 134 S.Ct. at 591 (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Specifically,
courts
should
the
abstain
Supreme
from
court contempt processes.
Court
has
adjudicating
held
that
challenges
federal
to
state
Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481
U.S. 1 (1987); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977).
Abstention
is appropriate because “[a] State’s interest in the contempt
process, through which it vindicates the regular operation of
2
its judicial system, so long as that system itself affords the
opportunity to pursue federal claims within it, is surely an
important interest.”
Juidice, 430 U.S. at 335.
Because of
this, a federal court should abstain absent a finding “that the
state
proceeding
is
motivated
by
a
desire
to
harass
or
is
conducted in bad faith, or where the challenged [action] is
flagrantly
and
prohibitions.”
Plaintiffs
opportunity
to
patently
violative
of
express
constitutional
Id. at 338.
have
raise
not
shown
their
ongoing state proceeding.
that
they
constitutional
lacked
an
challenges
adequate
in
the
There are currently appeals pending
before the Court of Special Appeals, one apparently based on an
interlocutory appeal noted by Plaintiffs on September 28, 2015,
(Docket Case No. 387555, Circuit Court for Montgomery County),
and possibly another based on dismissal of a counterclaim for
which argument is scheduled for December 9, 2015.
at 5).
(ECF No. 1,
It does not appear that Plaintiffs have yet filed an
appeal from the contempt finding.
Although an appeal might not
automatically stay the circuit court’s civil contempt order, the
Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure provide Plaintiffs with the
ability to file a motion to stay enforcement of the order with
the circuit court and, if necessary, the appellate court.
ECF No. 1-9, and Md.Rules 8-422-25, 2-632).
(See
Plaintiffs appear
to have not filed such a motion with the circuit court, but “it
3
is abundantly clear that [they] had an opportunity to present
their federal claims in the state proceedings[, and] [n]o more
is required to invoke Younger abstention.”
337.
Plaintiffs
raised
their
Juidice, 430 U.S. at
constitutional
arguments
at
a
hearing in circuit court (ECF No. 1-10), and they will have an
opportunity to raise their claims on appeal within the state
court system.
Plaintiffs briefly allege that Younger abstention does not
apply
because
Fourteenth
the
contempt
Amendments
by
order
forcing
violates
Plaintiffs
search of their home to avoid contempt.1
the
to
Fourth
consent
and
to
a
However, Plaintiffs’
allegations do not sufficiently allege a “flagrant” and “patent”
violation of “express constitutional prohibitions” to trigger
the “narrow exception[]” allowing a federal court to intervene
in
this
(1975);
case.
see
Huffman
also
this
v.
Juidice,
issue
Pursue,
430
Ltd.,
U.S.
confuses
at
420
U.S.
338.
abstention
592,
611
Plaintiffs’
discussion
of
principles
with
immunity.
The cases Plaintiffs cite to support their argument
that the court order was unconstitutional involve significantly
different facts and do not show that the circuit court order was
“flagrantly
and
prohibitions.”
patently
violative
of
express
constitutional
Absent such a showing, this court must abstain
1
Plaintiffs also argue that the order was made in bad faith
and a desire to harass, but the record contains no support for
this assertion.
4
from adjudicating a request to enjoin ongoing civil contempt
proceedings,
and
constitutional
Plaintiffs’
arguments
appropriate
within
is
path
ongoing
the
to
raise
their
state
court
action.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs recite, in a paper filed November
16, that they hand delivered copies of the Motion and Notice of
Requested Hearing, along with the other papers “on November 16
and November 17, 2015.”
(ECF No. 1-1, at 2).
They blithely
state that Defendants could easily attend a hearing, if one is
set for November 18.
grants
the
court
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)
authority
to
issue
a
temporary
restraining
order without notice to the adverse party or its attorney only
if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a
verified
complaint
clearly
show
that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition;
and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in
writing any efforts made to give notice and
the reasons why it should not be required.
The undersigned is not convinced, based on Plaintiffs’ brief
assertions and purported timeline, that their efforts to provide
notice
relief
have
been
requested,
sufficient.
the
Given
significant
the
doubt
seriousness
that
of
the
Plaintiffs’
complaint can withstand abstention analysis, or otherwise may
well
fail
to
state
a
claim
or
5
demonstrate
subject
matter
jurisdiction, the court declines to hold a hearing tomorrow to
consider issuance of a temporary restraining order.
Plaintiffs
have not made the necessary showing for the extraordinary relief
requested.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?