Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03120/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03120-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3120

___________

Doug Norwood, * 

* 

Appellant, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas

Betty Dickey, Chief Justice of the * 

Arkansas Supreme Court, in her * 

official capacity; James A. Badami, * 

executive Director of the Arkansas * 

Judicial Discipline and Disability * 

Commission, in his official capacity, * 

* 

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2005

Filed: June 1, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Attorney Doug Norwood ("Norwood") appeals the district court's1

 dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. Norwood sued the justices of the Arkansas Supreme

Appellate Case: 04-3120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2005 Entry ID: 1909887
2

Rule 7A of the Rules of Procedure of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and

Disability Commission provides that, in the event that the Arkansas Commission

decides, after investigation, to take any action with regard to a particular judge, that

action shall be communicated by letter, which shall become public information. Ark.

J.D. & D.C. R. 7A. In the event that the Arkansas Commission recommends a change

in conduct on the part of the judge, the letter is to state the facts which led to the

admonition. Id. Rule 7C points out that all investigatory records, files, and reports

shall be confidential, and no disclosure is allowed during the investigation. Ark. J.D.

& D.C. R. 7C.

-2-

Court and James Badami ("Badami"), executive director of the Arkansas Judicial

Discipline and Disability Commission ("Arkansas Commission"), alleging a violation

of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the civilrights action based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). We affirm.

I. Background

Norwood, a licensed attorney practicing in Arkansas, filed a complaint with the

Arkansas Commission alleging violations of a judicial canon against an Arkansas

circuit court judge. The Arkansas Commission oversees all proceedings involving the

discipline or disability of judges in the state courts of Arkansas. After filing the

complaint, Norwood received a letter from Badami informing Norwood that if he

publicly disclosed the nature of the complaint that he would be subject to punishment

for contempt by the Arkansas Supreme Court, pursuant to Arkansas Judicial

Discipline and Disability Commission Rule 72

 and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-404.

After receiving the letter, Norwood filed this suit in federal district court,

seeking a declaratory judgment and temporary and permanent injunctions against

Badami and the Arkansas Commission. The district court dismissed the civil-rights

action, concluding Younger abstention was proper because there were ongoing state

administrative proceedings that implicated state interests and that Norwood had an

opportunity in the state proceedings to raise the federal issue. The district court

Appellate Case: 04-3120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2005 Entry ID: 1909887
-3-

further found that, even if abstention did not apply, the confidentiality provisions of

Rule 7 and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-403 were constitutional. Norwood appeals the

district court's dismissal of his complaint arguing against the application of Younger

to the instant facts and the constitutionality of Rule 7 and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-

404.

II. Discussion

We review motions to dismiss de novo. Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale

Sch. Dis., 133 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 1998). When deciding a motion to dismiss, we must

accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 319 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th

Cir. 2003).

We review the application of the Younger abstention doctrine for abuse of

discretion. Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, 163 F.3d 475, 481 (8th

Cir. 1998). In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the United States Supreme

Court directed "federal courts to abstain from hearing cases when (1) there is an

ongoing state judicial proceeding which (2) implicates important state interests, and

when (3) that proceeding affords an adequate opportunity to raise the federal

questions presented." Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 1996). Later, in

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431–32

(1982), the Court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with

ongoing disciplinary proceedings within the jurisdiction of a state supreme court.

Norwood concedes, and we agree, that the first two requirements of Younger

are met. The proceedings before the Arkansas Commission were ongoing at the time

Norwood brought his § 1983 claim. Also, the proceedings before the Arkansas

Commission implicated an important state interest—the quality of its judiciary. 

Appellate Case: 04-3120 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2005 Entry ID: 1909887
-4-

Norwood argues that there was no opportunity to litigate his constitutional

challenge in the state administrative proceedings before either the Arkansas

Commission or the Arkansas Supreme Court. He avers that neither the Arkansas

Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission Rules nor the Arkansas Code provide

a procedure enabling a complainant to challenge the constitutionality of the

procedural rules at issue. In his complaint Norwood alleged that he had no other

effective remedy. Yet, Norwood did not present his constitutional claims before either

the Arkansas Commission or the Arkansas Supreme Court, nor did he allege in his

complaint that he presented his constitutional claims to the Arkansas Commission or

the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Norwood further argues that the members of the Arkansas Commission and the

Arkansas Supreme Court would have refused to consider his claim that the

confidentiality provision violated federal constitutional guarantees is without merit.

Rule 12F of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission Rules

allows the Arkansas "Supreme Court [to]. . . bring up for review any action taken

upon any complaint filed with the Commission, and may also bring up for review a

case in which the Commission has failed to act." Ark. J.D. & D.C. R. 12F. This rule

does not limit the Arkansas Supreme Court's review to situations in which a

respondent rather than a complainant seeks recourse. Nor does it restrict the court's

review. Notably, in both Duty v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Comm'n,

801 S.W.2d 46 (1990), and Hooper v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability

Comm'n, 800 S.W.2d 722 (1990), the Arkansas Supreme Court considered petitions

filed by complainants who sought review of decisions made by the Arkansas

Commission. 

We "will not engage any presumption 'that the state courts will not safeguard

federal constitutional rights.'" Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 357 (8th Cir. 1997)

(quoting Middlesex County Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 431). We hold that the district

Appellate Case: 04-3120 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/01/2005 Entry ID: 1909887
3

Pursuant to Rule 7A of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability

Commission, Norwood is no longer bound by the confidentiality rule because the

Arkansas Commission dismissed his complaint on July 16, 2004. See Ark. J.D. &

D.C. R. 7A.

-5-

court did not abuse its discretion in ordering dismissal based on Younger.

3

 In so

holding, we decline to rule on the constitutionality of the confidentiality provision

contained in Rule 7 of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission

and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-403.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3120 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/01/2005 Entry ID: 1909887