Cooper v. Anderson

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS to deny 4 Motion for TRO, and dismissing case - CASE CLOSED. Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 3/28/15 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
JOHN COLE COOPER,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:14-CV-818-DN

TODD ANDERSON,

District Judge David Nuffer
Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

The Report and Recommendation 1 issued by United States Magistrate Judge Brooke
Wells found that the abstention doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, 2
applies to this case and bars the claims asserted by Mr. Cooper’s Complaint 3 and Motion 4 for
Temporary Restraining Order. Judge Wells recommended that this case be dismissed and the
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order be DENIED. 5 The parties were notified of their right
to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72. Mr. Cooper filed his objection 6 to the Report and Recommendation on February
24, 2015. Mr. Cooper, on February 27, 2015, filed an Amended Objection 7 to Report and

1

Report and Recommendation, docket no. 14, filed February 11, 2015.

2

401 U.S. 37 (1971).

3

Affidavit/Verified Complaint of J. Cole Cooper In Support of Petitioner’s Ex-Parte Motion and Memorandum for:
Rule 65(b)9 Temporary Injunction for Stalking; fraud on court; and Professional Misconduct, docket no. 3, filed
November 14, 2014.
4
Petitioner’s Ex-Parte Motion and Memorandum for Ex-Parte temporary Injunction for Stalking; Fraud on Court;
and Professional Misconduct, docket no. 4, filed November 14, 2014.
5

Report and Recommendation at 4.

6

Objection to Report and Recommendation, docket no. 15, filed February 24, 2015.

7

Amended Objection to Report and Recommendation, docket no. 16, filed February 27, 2015.

Recommendation. The objections are substantially similar and the relief requested in each
objection is identical.
Federal courts, pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine “should not ‘interfere with
state court proceedings by granting equitable relief—such as injunctions of important state
proceedings or declaratory judgments regarding constitutional issues in those proceedings—’
when a state forum provides an adequate avenue for relief.” 8 Younger is grounded in notions of
comity—the idea that a state court should not, in certain circumstances, be interfered with. 9
Younger holds that a federal court should abstain when (1) there is an ongoing state judicial
proceeding; (2) “the state court must offer an adequate forum to hear the federal plaintiff’s
claims from the federal lawsuit”; and (3) “the state proceeding must involve important state
interests, matters which traditionally look to state law for their resolution or implicate separately
articulated state policies.” 10 Once the three conditions are met, “Younger abstention is nondiscretionary[.]” 11
Judge Wells found that all three conditions have been met in the present case:
First, Mr. Cooper alleges that the state court proceedings are ongoing. Second,
any arguments made by Mr. Cooper that the Utah courts are inadequate for his
claims are unpersuasive. The Tenth Circuit has noted that one cannot “dispute that
the Utah state judiciary provides an adequate forum for [a plaintiff] to assert his
constitutional claims.” 12 Third, the state proceeding at issue involve important
state interests including the custody of minor children. 13 And finally, Plaintiff’s
claims of professional misconduct are squarely within the purview of the state

8

Weitzel v. Div. of Occupational & Prof'l Licensing, 240 F.3d 871, 875 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rienhardt v. Kelly,
164 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th Cir. 1999)).

9

Younger, 401 U.S. at 44.

10

Taylor v. Jaquez, 126 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1997).

11

Amanatullah v. Colorado Bd. of Med. Examiners, 187 F.3d 1160, 1163 (10th Cir. 1999).

12

Weitzel, 240 F.3d at 876.

13

See Complaint at 3–4.

2

court proceedings. 14 Accordingly, the court rejects Plaintiffs attempts to maintain
this court’s jurisdiction by asserting this case as an “ancillary claim.” 15
Neither of Plaintiff’s objections address the reasons for Judge Wells’s recommendation to
dismiss the case. That is, Plaintiff has failed to address and dispute Judge Wells’s finding that the
three conditions have been met which make Younger abstention under is mandatory.
Instead, Plaintiff contends in a conclusory fashion that “[t]he issues presented before this
Court antedate the latter case, and therefore the Younger abstention does not apply.” 16 Plaintiff
proceeds to incoherently argue, among other things, that “[t]his Court has supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As such, supplemental
jurisdiction empowers federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Ancillary Claim.” 17 “Substantial
Justice requires federal court jurisdiction in this case to prevent and protect Plaintiff from
suffering further irreparable harm at the hands of Defendant Todd F. Anderson et al.” 18 “Plaintiff
has filed substantial evidence in support of his Complaint answering the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Evidence for establishing a proper foundation for his claims.” 19 “Plaintiff has
named Defendant Todd Anderson et al. And, although Plaintiff’s original complaint is not
perfect, Plaintiff’s Constitutional and Federal claims provide substantial federal grounds to
afford Plaintiff an opportunity to test his claims on the merits.” 20 “Plaintiff cited 42 U.SC

14
See e.g., Vakas v. Rodriquez, 728 F.2d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir. 1984) (“The principles of comity and federalism
dictate that federal courts abstain from premature entry into state judicial construction of administrative disciplinary
procedures.”).
15

Report and Recommendation at 3.

16

Amended Objection at 1.

17

Id. at 2.

18

Id.

19

Id. at 3.

20

Id. at 4.

3

§1983, inter alia, as legal grounds for bringing this suit “John Cole Cooper v. Todd Anderson et
al.” 21
Plaintiff concludes his objections by stating:
The Instant case antedates any ongoing state proceedings. Material facts and
Evidence shows that Defendant(s) et. al induced all fraud/perjuries that Mrs.
Cooper committed. This Court’s federal jurisdiction requirements in this ancillary
case are answered by (1) Substantial Justice; (2) Substantive Law; and (3)
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. Therefore, pursuant to Fed. Civ. P. 72 (b)(2) Plaintiff
John Cole Cooper objects to Court’s Recommendation “that this case be
dismissed and the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order be Denied”. Plaintiff
has shown that Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court’s supplemental jurisdiction empowers
Plaintiff’s Ancillary claim. 22
De novo review of all materials, including the record that was before the magistrate judge
and the reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation, has been completed. The analysis
and conclusion of the magistrate judge are correct and the Report and Recommendation will be
adopted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation 23 is ADOPTED in its
entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion 24 for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED and this case is
DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.
Dated March 28, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge

21

Id.

22

Id. at 5.

23

Docket no. 14.

24

Docket no. 4.

4