Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01415/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01415-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv1415 WQH (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANGANATH SARASWATI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1415 WQH (POR)

ORDER

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, and DOES

1-20,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and to Abstain

and Further Stay or Dismiss Action (ECF No. 37) filed by Defendant County of San Diego.

BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2007, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint (ECF No. 1).

On April 23, 2008, this Court issued an Order denying a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

(ECF No. 5). The Court concluded that the Complaint adequately alleged that a municipal

policy or custom caused Plaintiff constitutional injury and that the County of San Diego was

not immune from liability. Id. at 4-7. The Court declined to abstain from exercising

jurisdiction under the doctrine of Colorado River. Id. 

On March 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 24). On

June 9, 2009, Defendant filed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and to Abstain and

Case 3:07-cv-01415-WQH-POR Document 40 Filed 11/04/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Verified Petition for

Peremptory Writ of Mandate, Case No. GIC 879297, Plaintiff’s Verified Petition for

Peremptory Writ of Mandate, Case No. 37-2009-00088019-CU-WM-CTL, the Superior

Court’s Judgment filed on December 4, 2009, for the consolidated mandamus proceedings, and

Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal dated January 12, 2010. (ECF No. 37-2 at 3-28; 37-3 at 1-2).

Courts may take judicial notice of their own records, and may also take judicial notice of other

courts’ proceedings if they “directly relate to matters before the court.” Hayes v. Woodford, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1136-37 (S.D. Cal. 2006); see also United States ex rel. Robinson

Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992 ); Fed R. Evid.

210(b). Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. 

- 2 - 07cv1415 WQH (POR)

Stay or Dismiss Action. (ECF No. 29). On August 13, 2009, the Court granted Defendant’s

motion and stayed the action pursuant to the Younger [v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)]

abstention doctrine pending resolution of state mandamus proceedings in the Superior Court

of California, County of San Diego. (ECF No. 32 at 7). 

On May 12, 2010, Defendant filed a status report and informed the Court that Plaintiff’s

writ of mandamus in the state court proceeding had been denied. (ECF No. 35). On July 28,

2010, this Court lifted the stay. (ECF No. 36). 

On August 4, 2010, Defendant filed a second Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and

to Abstain and Further Stay or Dismiss Action pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 37) On August 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and to Abstain and Further Stay or Dismiss Action.

(ECF No. 38). On August 30, 2010, Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 39).

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that “[t]he Superior Court found against plaintiff in the mandamus

proceeding on all causes of action and found no damages.”1

 (ECF No. 37 at 4). Defendant

seeks dismissal because “plaintiff has now litigated the liability issues[]” and the Superior

Court found that the County was not liable. Id. at 7. Therefore, the issue of damages is moot

because “issue preclusion applies and plaintiff is collaterally estopped from litigating the same

issues again.” Id. 

In the alternative, Defendant seeks an extension of the stay that was previously placed

on this case pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine pending completion of the state

appeal. Id. at 7-8. Defendant states that “[t]he state proceeding is now pending in the

Case 3:07-cv-01415-WQH-POR Document 40 Filed 11/04/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv1415 WQH (POR)

California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District . . . .” Id. at 4. 

Plaintiff contends that the Court’s prior application of the Younger abstention doctrine

was improper, and any further application of Younger would also be improper because the

federal constitutional questions raised in this federal Complaint were not a part of the state

action. (ECF No. 38 at 6). Plaintiff contends that the Court should allow the parties to proceed

with discovery in this case so this Court may address the “uniquely federal (constitutional)

questions which must be answered by this Court whether or not the administrative review

conducted by the state court judge resolves in Plaintiff’s favor.” Id. at 8. 

As an alternative to dismissal, Plaintiff requests a stay because “his appeal of [the state

mandamus proceedings] is currently pending in the State Court of Appeal,” therefore, there is

an “on-going state proceeding which is by no means final.” Id. at 7 (quotation omitted).

Plaintiff also contends that “issue preclusion and collateral estoppel cannot apply at this

stage[,]” to the issue of damages because a judgment is not final if on appeal. Id. at 8. 

“Younger and its progeny ‘espouse a strong federal policy against federal-court

interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.’”

Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 978, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Middlesex Cnty Ethics

Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982)). Younger is a jurisdictional

doctrine, which involves “comity, federalism, economy, and the presumption that state courts

are competent to decide issues of federal constitutional law . . . .” Commc’ns Telesystems Int’l

v. Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 196 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 1999). In determining whether to

abstain under Younger, a federal court should ask: “first, do the type of state hearings at issue

constitute an ongoing state judicial proceeding; second, do the proceedings implicate important

state interests; and third, is there an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise

constitutional challenges.” Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 973 (citing Middlesex Cnty Ethics Comm.,

457 U.S. at 432) (emphasis in original). 

A party may move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure after moving to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule

12(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g). Younger abstention is properly raised in a motion for

Case 3:07-cv-01415-WQH-POR Document 40 Filed 11/04/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 07cv1415 WQH (POR)

judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). See San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of

Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2008).

However, “an abstention-based stay order, rather than a dismissal, is appropriate when

damages are at issue.” Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 973. 

Plaintiff has appealed the decision of the San Diego County Superior Court regarding

the mandamus proceedings to the California Court of Appeal and the appeal is pending. (ECF

No. 37-1 at 4; 38 at 7). The Court finds that the first requirement for abstention under Younger

is satisfied because there are ongoing state proceedings. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481

U.S. 1, 3-4, 10 (1987) (finding that the court should have abstained under Younger while the

state proceeding was pending on appeal); see also Lebbos v. Judges of Super. Ct., Santa Clara

Cnty, 883 F.2d 810, 814 (9th Cir. 1989). 

This action challenges the County of San Diego’s determination that complaints of child

abuse against Plaintiff are inconclusive, and challenges the placement of Plaintiff’s name on

the Child Abuse Index. California has an important interest in protecting children, and the

purpose of the Child Abuse Index “is to protect children from abuse and neglect.” Cal. Penal

Code § 11164; see (ECF No. 32). The Court finds that the second requirement for abstention

under Younger is satisfied because these proceedings implicate important state interests. 

The Court finds that the third requirement for abstention under Younger is satisfied

because the State proceedings are governed by California’s writ of mandate procedure, which

provides Plaintiff with sufficient opportunity to litigate his federal constitutional claims. See

Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 332-33 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding that California’s writ of

mandate procedure satisfies the third requirement for Younger abstention because it “provides

a meaningful opportunity for [a federal plaintiff] to present his constitutional claims for

independent judicial review.”) . 

The Court concludes that continued abstention under Younger is proper. The Court

further concludes that dismissal of the federal proceedings is not proper because Plaintiff seeks

damages and injunctive relief in both the state and federal proceedings; and, as discussed

above, the State proceedings are ongoing. Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 973; see also Offshore

Case 3:07-cv-01415-WQH-POR Document 40 Filed 11/04/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - 07cv1415 WQH (POR)

Sportswear, Inc. v. Vuarnet Intern., B.V.,114 F.3d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1997).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED

and the Motion to Abstain and Further Stay or Dismiss Action filed by Defendant County of

San Diego is GRANTED. (ECF No. 37). The Court stays this action pending resolution the

appeal in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. Defendant County of San

Diego shall file a status report with respect to the proceedings in the state appellate court

ninety (90) days from the date of this Order, and every ninety (90) days thereafter. 

DATED: November 4, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01415-WQH-POR Document 40 Filed 11/04/10 Page 5 of 5