Loch v. Watkins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2003
• Docket: 01-1598
• Status: Published

Opinion

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 Loch v. Watkins, et al. No. 01-1598 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0234P (6th Cir.) File Name: 03a0234p.06 _________________ COUNSEL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ARGUED: Hugh M. Davis, Jr., CONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, Detroit, Michigan, for _________________ Appellant. Linda D. Fegins, CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT, Detroit, Michigan, Julie C. Quinlan- Dufrane, WAYNE COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, NICOLE M. LOCH , X Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Cynthia Plaintiff-Appellant, - Heenan, CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, - Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Linda D. Fegins, CITY OF - No. 01-1598 DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT, Detroit, Michigan, W. v. - Steven Pearson, WAYNE COUNTY CORPORATION > COUNSEL, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees. , FRED WATKINS; JOHN D. - O’HAIR ; COUNT Y OF WAYNE; - _________________ BENNY NAPOLEON; THE CITY - OPINION OF DETROIT , - _________________ Defendants-Appellees. - - BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Chief Circuit Judge. Nicole N Loch appeals the decision of the district court dismissing her claims under state law and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the Appeal from the United States District Court ground of abstention. The case stemmed from seizure of for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. Loch’s Jeep Cherokee under the Michigan forfeiture statute. No. 00-70478—Denise Page Hood, District Judge. Loch challenged the seizure under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state conversion grounds, seeking damages. She later filed Argued: March 27, 2003 motions for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as leave to amend her complaint to include would-be plaintiffs who Decided and Filed: July 17, 2003 could represent a proposed class of litigants opposing the forfeiture procedure. Upon motion by the defendant Before: MARTIN, Chief Circuit Judge; KENNEDY and municipalities and officers, the district court found that it DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges. could not review her complaints because they were intertwined with pending state litigation. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. On January 7, 2000, Detroit police officers seized a 1996 Jeep Cherokee driven by Jack Paul Barrett II after Barrett was

1 No. 01-1598 Loch v. Watkins, et al. 3 4 Loch v. Watkins, et al. No. 01-1598

arrested for attempting to purchase marijuana. The Jeep was innocent of wrongdoing, ordered return of the vehicle, and on impounded, then seized, under section 333.7521(1)(d) of the a motion for reconsideration of a decision to impose a $600 Michigan Compiled Laws, which authorizes forfeiture of any towing and storage fee, ruled that Loch was not responsible vehicle involved in the use, transport, or facilitation of for those costs. The state appealed that judgment, and the transport of controlled substances for sale or receipt. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on the case on August 23, officers seized the vehicle as part of a Wayne County program 2002. People v. 1996 Jeep and Nichole Loch, Claimant called Operation Push-Off. The program permits the police Appellee, 652 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. App. 2002). to seize vehicles that are used in the purchase or attempted purchase of any amount of marijuana. The local prosecutors Twenty days after the seizure of the vehicle in Barrett’s then subject those vehicles to forfeiture. arrest, but before the forfeiture hearing in state court, Loch filed a complaint in federal district court. Loch first made a Loch, who owned the Jeep, was not present at the time of claim under section 1983, claiming that Michigan’s the arrest but received notice of the pending forfeiture. The Operation Push-Off violated the due process clause of the notice advises the owner of the right to post a bond and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution contest the forfeiture in state court. The owner has the option, because it deprived individuals of forfeiture hearings and however, of settling the case for a specified sum plus towing extorted settlements from owners who wished to avoid losing and storage costs, thereby regaining possession of the vehicle. the vehicles to lienholders. Loch made a second claim under Loch attempted to post bond and contest the seizure of her section 1983, alleging that the City of Detroit and Wayne property. She claims, however, that the prosecutor’s office County failed to train their employees adequately in the told her that she was not permitted to post bond and contest operation of the forfeiture, thus depriving Loch of due process the forfeiture because there was a lien on the vehicle and that and resulting in an unlawful seizure of property. Loch’s third the vehicle would be turned over to the lienholder of record section 1983 claim alleged that the forfeiture amounted to unless Loch entered into an agreement on the forfeiture. taking of property without just compensation. Loch’s fourth section 1983 claim alleged that police Sergeant Watkins’s use Loch claims that the prosecutor’s office leads owners to of the forfeiture statute constituted an abuse of process. believe that to obtain a trial date, the owners must waive their Loch’s final claim arose out of state law, and she alleged that rights to certain pretrial proceedings. The defendants contest all of the defendants conspired to convert the Jeep to their that claim, stating that pretrial waiver is optional and not possession. required to obtain a trial date. The prosecutor’s office also seeks to have state courts hold owners who prevail on the Eventually, Loch filed motions with the district court forfeiture liable for towing and storage expense. Eventually, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and leave to amend the Wayne County prosecutor’s office waived the bond her complaint to add plaintiffs who could represent a class of requirement and filed a forfeiture action in Wayne County litigants challenging the forfeiture procedure. The Circuit Court. municipalities and their employees responded by filing motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule At the trial on the merits on June 22, 2000, the court of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The defendants claimed that the determined that Loch was an “innocent owner” of the Jeep district court should abstain from deciding the claims before because she was unaware of Barrett’s intent to use the car for it because the federal proceedings involved claims procuring marijuana. The court concluded that Loch was No. 01-1598 Loch v. Watkins, et al. 5 6 Loch v. Watkins, et al. No. 01-1598

inextricably intertwined with the pending state forfeiture before it.” County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 action. U.S. 185, 188-89 (1959). When a court does elect to abstain, the decision must be under “the exceptional circumstances The district court granted the motions to dismiss, finding where the order to the parties to repair to the state court would that the federal court should not invoke jurisdiction over clearly serve an important countervailing interest.” Id. Loch’s complaint during pendency of the state proceedings, based upon principles of abstention articulated in Rooker v. The Supreme Court has announced several circumstances Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia which qualify as exceptional and in which abstention is Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); and appropriate. One of these “doctrines” is applicable to this Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The district court also case. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme denied Loch’s motions for declaratory and injunctive relief Court advised federal courts to abstain from deciding a matter and leave to amend. that would be properly before them but for the pendency of state criminal proceedings in the matter. Id. at 43-45. We We review a dismissal for lack of subject matter look at three factors to determine if Younger abstention is jurisdiction de novo. Blakely v. United States, 276 F.3d 853, warranted: “(1) whether the underlying proceedings constitute 863 (6th Cir. 2002). As to the review of the district court’s an ongoing state judicial proceeding, (2) whether the decision to abstain, we said in United States v. proceedings implicate important state interests, and Commonwealth of Kentucky, 252 F.3d 816, 825 (6th Cir. (3) whether there is an adequate opportunity in the state 2001): proceedings to raise a constitutional challenge.” Tindall v. Wayne County Friend of the Court, 269 F.3d 533, 538 (6th While we normally review de novo a district court's Cir. 2001); see also Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d 937, 954 decision to abstain, see Fed. Express Corp. v. Tennessee (6th Cir. 2000); Zalman v. Armstrong, 802 F.2d 199, 201-02 Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 925 F.2d 962, 967 (6th Cir.1991), (6th Cir. 1986). we have at least on one occasion reviewed such a decision for abuse of discretion, see Romine v. First, when determining whether state court proceedings Compuserve Corp., 160 F.3d 337, 341, 343 (6th involving the plaintiffs are pending, we look to see if the Cir.1998). As the Second Circuit has noted, however, state court proceeding was pending at the time the federal "there is little practical distinction between review for complaint was filed. Zalman, 802 F.2d at 204. It remains abuse of discretion and review de novo" in abstention pending until a litigant has exhausted his state appellate cases, inasmuch as the district court's discretion to remedies. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 609 (1975); abstain "is narrowed by a federal court's obligation to Foster v. Kassulke, 898 F.2d 1144, 1146 (6th Cir. 1990). exercise its jurisdiction in all but the most extraordinary Loch argues that the state court proceeding was not pending cases." Hachamovitch v. DeBuono, 159 F.3d 687, 693 when she filed her federal lawsuit because she filed her (2d Cir.1998). federal complaint four days before the state filed its complaint seeking forfeiture. She asserts that the state judicial As that case indicates, generally federal courts should not proceedings had not been initiated, so no ongoing proceeding abstain from exercising jurisdiction on abstention grounds, for would have given her opportunity to raise any constitutional abstention “is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the challenges in state court. duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly No. 01-1598 Loch v. Watkins, et al. 7 8 Loch v. Watkins, et al. No. 01-1598

In Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349 (1975), however, is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and the Court held “that where state criminal proceedings are a continuance of the belief that the National Government begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint will fare best if the States and their institutions are left is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits free to perform their separate functions in their separate have taken place in the federal court, the principles of ways. Younger v. Harris should apply in full force.” Although Loch argues that the state proceedings had run their course before See also Middlesex County Ethics Comm’n. v. Garden State the district court made its decision in March of 2001, she Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982); Kelm v. Hyatt, 44 F.3d 415, cannot be correct. The state of Michigan appealed the 419 (6th Cir. 1995). judgment of the state court in the forfeiture case, and the state appellate process was not complete when the district court We find persuasive the Eighth Circuit’s perspective in decided to abstain in the case, as is clear from the August Postscript Enterprises, Inc. v. Peach, 878 F.2d 1114, 1116 2002 judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals in People (8th Cir. 1989), in which the court held that forfeiture v. 1996 Jeep and Nichole Loch, Claimant Appellee, 652 proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and of such a N.W.2d 675 (Mich. App. 2002). character as to warrant application of the Younger doctrine. “The state’s interest in these forfeiture proceedings is likely As the Supreme Court said in Huffman, 420 U.S. at 608, to be as great as its interest in its criminal law proceedings.” “[A]ll of the evils at which Younger is directed would inhere Id. Citing Huffman, 420 U.S. at 605 (internal citations in federal intervention prior to completion of state appellate omitted), the court in Postscript Enterprises said, “Under the proceedings, just as surely as they would if such intervention Younger abstention doctrine the federal courts must abstain occurred at or before trial.” For that reason, we hold that the from interfering with the efforts of states or local district court was correct in assessing the proceedings before governments ‘to protect the very interests which underlie it as ongoing in the state courts. [their] criminal laws and to obtain compliance with precisely the standards which are embodied in [their] criminal laws.’” Next we turn to the questions of “whether the proceedings We find this reasoning persuasive. We believe that implicate important state interests, and whether there is an Michigan’s interest in its forfeiture laws is directly correlated adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise a with its interest in the enforcement of the criminal laws. We constitutional challenge.” Tindall, 269 F.3d at 538. Though further believe that there was no impediment to Loch’s raising Younger itself concerned abstention when a state criminal the constitutional issues of this case in the state proceedings. matter was pending, the doctrine has been interpreted to For these reasons, we believe Younger abstention is caution against interference in state civil matters. As the appropriate in this case. Supreme Court said in Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 334 (1977) (internal citations omitted): It is crucial that we make clear that the district court’s decision to abstain from hearing this case was appropriate at [T]he more vital consideration behind the Younger the time of the decision given the pendency of the state doctrine of nonintervention lay not in the fact that the proceedings. Loch’s claims are therefore dismissed without state criminal process was involved but rather in the prejudice, because we decline to address their merits, and she notion of comity, that is, a proper respect for state is free to raise any and all of these claims in federal court functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country when the state proceedings are fully completed. No. 01-1598 Loch v. Watkins, et al. 9

Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.