Geitz et al v. Koster et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of the remaining motions pending in this action are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/24/15. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES B. GEITZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.

CHRIS KOSTER, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4: 15CV269 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants Chris Koster, Keith Schafer, David Schmitt, George Lombardi, and Ellis
Mcswain move to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Plaintiffs, who were, at the time this action was filed, being held for trial to

determine whether they should be civilly committed under Missouri's Sexually Violent Predator
Act (the "Act"), filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their right to
equal protection. Defendants argue that the Court should abstain from hearing this action under
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971 ). The Court agrees with defendants, and this case is

dismissed.
Standard

In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court must take all facts alleged in the complaint to be true and must construe the
pleadings in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Gregory v. Dillard's, 494 F.3d 694, 709 (8th
Cir. 2007). The Federal Rules do not require great precision in pleadings. Id. at 710. "The
simplified notice pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) requires only a statement that
gives the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests." Id. (quotations omitted). However, the factual allegations in the complaint must be more
than "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action."
Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see Gregory, 494 F.3d at 710.

A

complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Discussion

Plaintiffs argue that their right to equal protection was violated because defendants
treated them differently than other sex offenders.

Plaintiffs served determinate sentences.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants treated them differently than inmates serving indeterminate
sentences by using the information in their Sexual Victims Disclosures against them when they
were due to be released from prison in order to prosecute them under the Act. Plaintiffs contend
that prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, even those who committed more violent crimes,
are never detained to determine whether they are Sexually Violent Predators ("SVPs") under the
Act. Plaintiffs say the result of this is that only prisoners serving determinate sentences are
prosecuted under the Act.
Defendants argue that the conditions for Younger abstention are applicable.

"The

Younger abstention doctrine, as it has evolved, provides that federal courts should abstain from

exercising jurisdiction when (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding, (2) which implicates
important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise any relevant federal
questions in the state proceeding." Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiffs have chosen not to address defendants' argument. Instead, plaintiffs moved to
strike defendants' motion on the basis that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required
defendants to submit an answer, that is, plaintiffs do not belief that a motion to dismiss is a

2

proper responsive pleading. Plaintiffs are incorrect. The Rules require a defendant to file a
motion to dismiss "before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed."

Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(7). Therefore, defendants followed the correct procedure.
There are three exceptions to the Younger doctrine. Abstention is not required if"( 1) the
state proceeding is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith; (2) there is an
extraordinarily pressing need for immediate equitable relief; or (3) the challenged provision is
flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions." Pincham v. Illinois
Judicial Inquiry Bd., 872 F.2d 1341, 1349 (7th Cir. 1989) (internal citations and quotations

omitted).
Each of the plaintiffs have ongoing state proceedings where the issues raised in this case
have been or could be raised for purposes of Younger abstention. See In re Christner, No. 14JEPR00050 (Jefferson County); In re Blum, No. 14SF-PR00134 (St. Francois County); In re Geitz,
No. 13SL-PR01060 (St. Louis County). The proper point of reference for determining whether
state proceedings are ongoing, as required to satisfy the first prong for possible Younger
abstention in favor of state proceedings, is the date the federal complaint is filed. Adibi v.
California State Bd. of Pharmacy, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1109-10 (N.D. Ca. 2006) (collecting

cases). Each of plaintiffs SVP proceedings were pending in the trial courts when this action was
filed. Additionally, SVP proceedings are appealable to the Missouri Court of Appeals. See, e.g.,
In re Gorman, 371 S.W.3d 100 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). As a result, the first Younger factor is met.

The civil commitment proceedings against plaintiffs implicate important state interests.
The Court "do[es] not weigh the competing interests of the federal and state courts in
adjudicating" a plaintiffs claims. Plouffe, 606 F.3d at 893. In Kansas v. Hendricks, the Court
noted that the states have an important interest in detaining persons "who . . . pose a danger to

3

the public health and safety." 521 U.S. 346, 357 (1997). As a result, the second Younger factor
is met.
With regard to the third factor, there is an adequate opportunity to raise any relevant
federal questions in the state proceeding. State courts are "competent to vindicate any
constitutional objections" to their proceedings. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 604
(1975). Therefore, the Younger factors are applicable to this case.
Finally, none of the exceptions to Younger abstention apply in this case. Plaintiffs have
not demonstrated that the state court proceedings are conducted in bad faith, that there is a
pressing need for equitable relief, or that the Act is flagrantly and patently in violation of the
constitution.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 20] is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of the remaining motions pending in this action

are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED.

An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.

'ltf~L-

Dated this qdeyof July, 2015.

~.ROSS

ED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4