Deegan et al v. State of West Virginia, et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Finding that the abstention in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) applies and that there are no exceptional circumstances present that would warrant this court's intervention, the court denies the plaintiffs' 10 MOTION for a Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 2/28/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (ras)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
PARKERSBURG DIVISION

THOMAS DEEGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-cv-00523

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
[Docket 10].
The plaintiffs in this case are Thomas Deegan and his mother, Darlene Deegan.
According to the complaint, on February 28, 2010, Thomas Deegan called a crisis hotline from his
mother’s home, threatening to commit suicide. The police were contacted and several officers
arrived at the plaintiffs’ home in Wood County. While assisting Mr. Deegan, officers observed
what the complaint describes as “a small indoor hydroponics natural herb garden growing with the
herb Cannabis sativa L.” (Compl. [Docket 1] ¶ 6–7). After obtaining a search warrant from a
Wood County magistrate, additional officers arrived and removed sixty-three “indoor natural
medicine herb Cannabis sativa L. plants” from the home. (Id. ¶ 7).
On May 13, 2010, criminal charges were filed against the plaintiffs in the Circuit Court of
Wood County. (Comp. ¶ 8). Thomas Deegan subsequently filed what the complaint describes
as affidavits “notifying the COURT of proper venue and requesting Biblical justice according to
1

Gods laws.” (Id. ¶ 9). The complaint further alleges that on February 13, 2012, Navin C. Naidu,
who is alleged to be a justice on the “Ecclesiastical Court of Justice, Pennsylvania”, paid a removal
fee and attempted to remove to the case to the Ecclesiastical Court of Justice. (Id. ¶ 10).
The plaintiffs filed suit in this court on February 24, 2012. The defendants include the
State of West Virginia, Wood County, six individuals, “and all successors, et al.” (Compl.
[Docket 1]). The Complaint seeks five million dollars in cumulative damages and an injunction
enjoining the state criminal prosecution. After 5:00 p.m. on February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs
notified the court via telephone of a hearing in the state matter set for 1:00 p.m. on February 28,
2012. The Wood County docket sheet for the relevant matter reflects that trial is set for 1:00 p.m.
today.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides: “A court of the United States may not grant an
injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress,
or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. §
2283. Thus, a district court may not enjoin a state court proceeding unless the injunction falls
directly within a specifically defined exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. Denny’s, Inc. v. Cake,
364 F.3d 521, 528 (4th Cir. 2004).
There are three exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act. These exceptions allow a court to
issue an injunction that is “(1) expressly authorized by statute; (2) necessary to aid the court’s
jurisdiction; or (3) required to protect or effectuate the court’s judgments.” Id. at 529 (citing
Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 146 (1988); Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. Of
Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287–88 (1970). The second and third exceptions do not apply
in this case. See generally, e.g., Chick Kam Choo, 486 U.S. at 146.

2

In Mitchum v. Foster, the Supreme Court held that injunctions in suits under 28 U.S.C. §
1983 are “expressly authorized” by Congress and therefore exempt from the Anti-Injunction Act.
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972). The Court also recognized, however, that federal courts
are generally prescribed from interfering with state criminal prosecutions. See id. (citing Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).
In Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not interfere with
state court prosecutions except in exceptional circumstances. This doctrine is known as Younger
Abstention. The Fourth Circuit has instituted a three-part test for determining when Younger
abstention is appropriate: “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding, (2) the proceeding
implicates important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to present the federal
claims in the state proceeding.” Employers Resource Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126,
1134 (4th Cir.1995).
In this case, the plaintiffs are involved in an ongoing state judicial proceeding. The state
proceeding is a criminal proceeding which clearly implicates important state interests. Further,
there is an adequate opportunity for the plaintiffs to present their federal claims in the state
proceeding. Therefore, the court FINDS that Younger abstention applies and FINDS that there
are no exceptional circumstances present that would warrant this court’s intervention. Therefore,
the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is hereby DENIED in accordance with
Younger v. Harris, 402 U.S. 37, 45 (1971).
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

3

February 28, 2012