Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02950/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02950-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Case No. C-05-2950-JF

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ETC.

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 8/4/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JUAN D. MARTINEZ, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C-05-2950-JF

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER; (2)

GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO CONVENE A THREE-JUDGE

PANEL; AND (3) STAYING ACTION

PURSUANT TO COLORADO RIVER

ABSTENTION DOCTRINE

[Doc. Nos. 2, 5, 12]

In this action, Plaintiffs allege that a change in voting procedures related to Proposition

77, an initiative measure that has been certified to appear on the ballot in a statewide special

election on November 8, 2005, has not been precleared as required by Section 5 of the Voting

Rights Act of 1965. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the text of Proposition 77 that was

submitted to the Attorney General for preparation of a title and summary prior to circulation as

required by the California Constitution and Elections Code differed from the text of the petition

that subsequently was circulated for voter signatures. Plaintiffs contend that this discrepancy

Case 5:05-cv-02950-JF Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 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

2

Case No. C-05-2950-JF

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ETC.

(JFLC2)

constitutes a change in voting procedures that must be precleared before Proposition 77 may be

placed on the ballot. Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining Defendants

from going forward with preparations to include Proposition 77 on the ballot absent Section 5

preclearance. Plaintiffs also request that a three-judge panel be convened to preside over

Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. 

The Court has considered the moving and responding papers. For the reasons discussed

below, the Court concludes that abstention is appropriate pursuant to Colorado River Water

Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). Accordingly, the Court will deny

Plaintiffs’ application for TRO without prejudice and stay the action pending resolution of

parallel state court proceedings. The Court will, however, request that the Chief Judge of the

Ninth Circuit convene a three-judge panel to ensure prompt disposition of Plaintiffs’ federal

claims in the event that the parallel state court proceedings do not render those claims moot.

Under Colorado River, a federal court may defer to a parallel state court proceeding based

upon “considerations of wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial

resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Tovar v. Billmeyer, 609 F.2d 1291, 1293

(9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817). “The focus under Colorado River

Water Conservation District is upon whether exceptional circumstances exist that indicate that

concurrent jurisdiction by state and federal courts is likely to cause piecemeal litigation, waste of

judicial resources, inconvenience to the parties, and conflicting results.” Id. The Ninth Circuit

has set forth six factors to be considered in determining whether Colorado River abstention is

appropriate: 

In Colorado River, the Court articulated four factors for determining whether

sufficiently exceptional circumstances exist to warrant abstention: (1) whether

either the state or federal court has exercised jurisdiction over a res; (2) the

inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal

litigation; and (4) the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction. In Moses

H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., the Court added two more

considerations: (5) whether federal or state law controls the decision on the

merits; and (6) whether the state court can adequately protect the rights of the

parties. 

40235 Washington Street Corp. v. Lusardi, 976 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations

omitted).

Case 5:05-cv-02950-JF Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 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

1

 Notably, the party representing that position, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer,

opposes Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO in the instant case and urges this Court to abstain pursuant

to Colorado River. Atty. Gen. Opp. at 4-6.

3

Case No. C-05-2950-JF

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ETC.

(JFLC2)

While the first two factors are not implicated here, the last four factors mandate

abstention in this case. The issue of whether Proposition 77 should appear on the ballot is being

litigated in a parallel state action. On July 22, 2005, the Sacramento Superior Court issued an

order directing that Proposition 77 be stricken from the ballot on the ground that the discrepancy

between the text submitted to the Attorney General and the text included in the petition violated

the initiative election procedures set forth in the California Constitution and Elections Code. On

July 25, 2005, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, stayed the superior

court’s order. The appellate court has set a hearing on the manner for August 5, 2005. A

determination that there has been a violation of state law sufficient to preclude the inclusion of

Proposition 77 on the ballot would moot the instant action. Moreover, a determination by the

state courts that there has not been such a violation of state law would have a significant effect

upon the instant action, because such a determination certainly would bear upon, if not preclude,

Plaintiffs’ argument that there has been a change in voting procedures material enough to trigger

the preclearance requirement of Section 5. The state action was filed before the instant action. 

Finally, although Plaintiffs in the instant action are not parties to the state court action, their

position is being vigorously represented there.1

The Court concludes that abstention in favor of the state court proceedings is appropriate. 

Accordingly, it will deny Plaintiffs’ application for TRO without prejudice and will stay the

instant action pending resolution of the state court proceedings. Because in light of the

impending election the Court will need to act promptly in the event that the state court

proceedings do not moot Plaintiffs’ claims in the instant action, the Court nonetheless will ask

the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit to convene a three-judge panel. The Court requests that the

parties notify the Court immediately of any change in the status of the state court proceedings.

Case 5:05-cv-02950-JF Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 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

Case No. C-05-2950-JF

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ETC.

(JFLC2)

ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiffs’ application for TRO is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

(2) Plaintiffs’ motion to convene a three-judge panel is GRANTED;

(3) and Defendants’ request to stay the instant action pursuant to Colorado River is

GRANTED. 

DATED: 8/4/05

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02950-JF Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 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

Case No. C-05-2950-JF

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ETC.

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Leroy W. Blankenship blankenshipl@co.monterey.ca.us, edwards-jamesg@co.monterey.ca.us

Thomas S. Knox tknox@klalawfirm.com

Zackery P. Morazzini zackery.morazzini@doj.ca.gov

Steven J. Reyes sreyes@maldef.org, lsilva@maldef.org

James F Sweeney jfs@sdglawfirm.com, bayne@sdglawfirm.com

Victor Viramontes vviramontes@maldef.org, lsilva@maldef.org 

Case 5:05-cv-02950-JF Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 Page 5 of 5