Brooks v. NH Supreme Court

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: April 29, 1996
• Docket: CV-95-166-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Brooks v. NH Supreme Court CV-95-166-M 04/29/96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Troy Brooks, Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 95-166-M

New Hampshire Supreme Court, et al.. Defendants

O R D E R

On September 1 , 1995, the court denied plaintiff's motions

for temporary restraining order and his motion for preliminary

injunction. Relying upon Younger v. Harris, 401 US. 37 (1971),

the court held that principles of federalism and comity

counselled against granting the reguested relief and in favor of

federal abstention. That order was recently affirmed by the

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Brooks v. New Hampshire

Supreme Court, No. 95-2129, 1996 WL 148576 (1st Cir. April 8,

1996).

Having ruled that abstention under Younger v. Harris is

appropriate, the court must now dismiss plaintiff's petition.

See, e.g., Gibson v. Berrvhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577 (1973)

("Younger v. Harris contemplates the outright dismissal of the federal suit, and the presentation of all claims, both state and

federal, to the state courts."). The court notes that plaintiff

does not seek an award of damages in this forum and, therefore,

he may fully and adequately pursue all of his pending claims in

the state proceedings. Cf. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193,

202 (1988) (a district court cannot dismiss a pending action

under Younger if the plaintiff's claims for monetary relief

cannot be redressed in the state proceeding. Under those

circumstances, the court should simply stay the case, pending the

outcome of the state action.).

Accordingly, plaintiff's petition is dismissed and the Clerk

of the Court is instructed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

April 29, 1996

cc: Philip T. Cobbin, Esq. Stephen J. Judge, Esq.