Lagervall et al v. Missoula County Public Schools et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Motion to Stay Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch on 8/17/2016. (TCL, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
ROBERT T. LAGERVALL,

CV 16-57-M-DLC-JCL

Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
MISSOULA COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, PRINCIPAL TED FULLER,
and JENNIE HAINES,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Robert Lagervall, appearing pro se, filed a motion requesting the
Court stay what appears to be a criminal prosecution pending against Lagervall’s
son in the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County. He argues
that the state court proceedings are occurring in violation of his, and his son’s
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, he alleges
the state court officials are not accommodating either his disability or his son’s
disability in violation of the ADA, and he contends the criminal prosecution itself
constitutes an act of retaliation prohibited by the ADA. Thus, he requests this
Court intervene in the referenced state court matter, apparently to enforce his ADA
rights.
Lagervall’s claims advanced in this civil action, and his allegations in his
1

pending motion to stay the state court proceedings are all pled under the ADA.
Thus, Lagervall’s claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, [or] laws [...] of the
United States[,]” and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1331. Nonetheless, his allegations regarding the state court proceedings, and his
motion to stay those proceedings, fall within a category of matters over which the
Court must abstain from exercising its jurisdiction.
There is a strong policy against federal intervention in pending state judicial
processes in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). See also Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 973 (9th Cir.
2004) (quoting Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar
Association, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982)). “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential
doctrine rooted in overlapping principles of equity, comity, and federalism.” San
Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee v. City of
San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008). Younger directs federal courts to
abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief that would interfere with
pending state or local criminal proceedings. Gilbertson, at 381 F.3d at 968.
The Ninth Circuit has concluded that the federal courts must abstain under
Younger if the following four requirements are met:
(1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates
important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating
federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court
2

action would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so,
i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger
disapproves.
City of San Jose, 546 F.3d at 1092 (citing Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 978, and
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Where applicable, Younger abstention is mandatory. Absent exceptional
circumstances, the district courts do not have discretion to avoid the doctrine if the
elements of Younger abstention exist in a particular case. City of San Jose, 546
F.3d at 1092 (citation omitted). The recognized exceptional circumstances are
limited to “a ‘showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary
circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.’” Id., (quoting Middlesex
County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423, 435
(1982)).
All of the elements of Younger abstention are present with respect to
Lagervall’s motion to stay the state court criminal prosecution against his son.
Lagervall’s motion indicates that the criminal prosecution is currently pending.
And any criminal prosecution implicates important state interests, i.e. the State of
Montana, through its state and local prosecuting offices, has a significant state
interest in prosecuting conduct that constitutes a criminal offense under the laws
of Montana.
With regard to Lagervall’s, or his son’s opportunity to raise any ADA issue
3

in the state court, he bears the burden to establish “that state procedural law bar[s]
presentation of [his] claims[]” in the state court proceedings. Pennzoil Co. v.
Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 432
(1979)). Lagervall has not set forth any allegation plausibly suggesting he or his
son will be barred from asserting any ADA rights in the state court.
Next, Lagervall proposes to have this Court enjoin the state court and
preclude further proceedings in the criminal action currently pending against his
son. Thus, Lagervall’s motion, if granted, would interfere with the state court
proceedings in a way that Younger disapproves.
Finally, Lagervall has not identified any exceptional circumstances that
would render Younger abstention inapplicable.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Lagervall’s motion to stay the state court criminal prosecution against his son is
DENIED.
DATED this 17th day of August, 2016.

Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge

4