Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01569/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01569-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MORRIS B. MYERS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

United Stat.as Court of Appeals 

'f'enth Circttit 

MAY 301989 

ROBER'l1 L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 87-1569 

) 

REGNAL W. GARFF, JR.; DAVID ) 

L~ WILKINSON; and MICHAEL F.' ) 

SKOLNICK, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Utah 

(D.C. No. C86-0693G) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Royal K. Hunt, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff-appellant. 

Stephen J. Sorenson, Assistant Attorney General, Utah Attorney 

General's Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants-appellees. 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 87-1569 Document: 01019961369 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 1 
Plaintiff Morris B. Myers appeals from the dismfssal of his 

claims against Regnal w. Garff, a Utah Juvenile Court judge; David 

L. Wilkinson, the Utah Attorney General; and Michael F. Skolnick, 

an Assistant Utah Attorney General. 1 The issues on appeal are (1) 

whether the district court properly concluded that defendant Judge 

Garff is immune from liability for damages in this case, and (2) 

whether the district court properly abstained from deciding 

plaintiff's remaining claims under the abstention doctrine of 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). We affirm in part and 

reverse in part. 

Facts 

The facts leading to this appeal are undisputed. On November 

19, 1981, the Juvenile Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, 

entered an order requiring that guardianship of plaintiff's son be 

transferred to the Utah State Division of Youth Corrections and 

that the son be placed in a suitable treatment facility. About 

three years later, the Utah Attorney General's office filed a 

petition with the Juvenile Court to receive contribution from 

plaintiff for support and other expenses incurred by the state in 

caring for plaintiff's son. 

After plaintiff failed to appear for a scheduled hearing on 

the matter, defendant Judge Garff entered a money judgment against 

plaintiff for $1,650. Judge Garff then entered an order directing 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1569 Document: 01019961369 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 2 
plaintiff to appear on January 30, 1986 and to show cause why he 

should not make payments to the state for the care of his son. 

Plaintiff failed to appear at the January 30, 1986 hearing, and 

Judge Garff entered a bench warrant for plaintiff's arrest. 

On March 30, 1986, plaintiff attended a hearing before Judge 

Garff. Defendant Skolnick, an Assistant Attorney General, 

appeared at the hearing on behalf of the state. After hearing 

testimony from plaintiff, Judge Garff issued an order directing 

plaintiff to pay off the $1,650 judgment through supervised 

community service to be credited at the rate of $5 per hour of 

work. Judge Garff also directed plaintiff to appear before the 

Juvenile Court on July 17, 1986 so that the court could review 

plaintiff's compliance with the court's order. Plaintiff did not 

appear on July 17, 1986, and Judge Garff entered another bench 

warrant for his arrest on July 22, 1986. Plaintiff was arrested 

and jailed on July 30, 1986. 

Plaintiff then brought suit in the district court against 

Judge Garff, Utah Attorney General Wilkinson, and Assistant 

Attorney General Skolnick pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 

1986, 1988, and 1994. He sought damages, declaratory and 

injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. In his complaint, 

plaintiff alleged that defendants had subjected him to peonage, 

had violated his rights of due process and equal protection under 

the Fourteenth Amendment, and had violated his right to be free 

from involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment. 

On January 28, 1986, the district court entered partial 

summary judgment as to all claims for damages against defendant 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1569 Document: 01019961369 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 3 
Judge Garff, based upon the doctrine'of judicial immunity. On 

March 4, 1987, the district court dismissed the remaining claims 

without prejudice under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. 

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny. See Myers v. Garff, 

655 F. Supp. 1021 (D. Utah 1987). 

Discussion 

A. Judicial Immunity 

We agree with the district court that Judge Garff is immune 

from liability for damages in this case. See,~, Van Sickle v. 

Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1434-35 (10th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff's 

citation of Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108 S. Ct. 538, 98 

L. Ed. 2d 555 (1988), is unavailing. That case merely held that 

judges do not have absolute immunity for decisions that they make 

while acting in a non-adjudicatory capacity, such as personnel 

decisions. 108 S. Ct. at 545-46. Here, plaintiff complains of 

decisions that Judge Garff made while he was acting in his 

judicial capacity. 

B. Younger Abstention 

The district court dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims 

without prejudice under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. 

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). We affirm in part and reverse in 

part. 

We affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's 

equitable claims under the Younger abstention doctrine for 

substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-1569 Document: 01019961369 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 4 
opinion. See Myers v. Garff, 655 F. Supp. 1021, 1024-25 (D. Utah 

1987). Abstention is proper in cases such as this one that 

involve "processes by which the State compels compliance with the 

judgments of its courts." Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 

1, 13-14 (1987). See also Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977) 

(district court should have abstained from enjoining civil 

contempt proceedings). 

However, we reverse the district court's dismissal of 

plaintiff's damage claims against defendants Wilkinson and 

Skolnick. Although the Younger abstention doctrine may require a 

federal court to withhold action on damage claims in certain 

circumstances, 2 the district court at most should have stayed 

rather than dismissed those claims because they cannot be 

redressed in the pending state proceedings. See Deakins v. 

Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 108 S. Ct. 523, 529, 98 L. Ed. 2d 529 

(1988) ("the District Court has no discretion to dismiss rather 

than to stay claims for monetary relief that cannot be redressed 

in the state proceeding"); Parkhurst v. State of Wyoming, 641 F.2d 

775, 777 (10th Cir. 1981). Therefore, we reverse the dismissal of 

the damage claims against defendants Wilkinson and Skolnick and 

remand for the district court to stay federal proceedings on those 

claims pending the conclusion of the state proceedings. See 

2 The Supreme Court has explicitly left open the question of 

whether the Younger doctrine applies to damage claims. Deakins v. 

Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 108 S. Ct. 523, 529, 98 L. Ed. 2d 529 

(1988); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 339 n.16 (1977). The 

circuits are divided on the issue. Compare Feaster v. Miksch, 846 

F.2d 21, 24 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 109 s. Ct. 

148, 102 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1988) and Mann'v:" Jett,781 F.2d 1448, 

1449 (9th Cir. 1986) with Bishop v. State Bar of Texas, 736 F.2d 

292, 295 (5th Cir. 1984). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-1569 Document: 01019961369 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 5 
Ballard v. Wilson, ~56 F.2d 1568, 1572 (5th Cir. 1988). 3 Of 

course, we express no view on the merits of those claims. 

In summary, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of all 

claims for monetary relief against defendant Judge Garff; we 

AFFIRM the dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff's claims for 

injunctive and declaratory relief; and we REVERSE the district 

court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims for monetary relief 

against defendants Wilkinson and Skolnick and REMAND for 

reinstatement of those claims and for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

3 It is not clear from the record on appeal whether the state 

proceedings are still ongoing. If the judgment at issue is final 

and the state has concluded its enforcement proceedings relating 

to that judgment, then there would be no reason to stay 

proceedings on plaintiff's damage claims. See generally Steffel 

v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 462 (1974) ("[T]he relevant principles 

of equity, comity, and federalism 'have little force in the 

absence of a pending state proceeding.'") (quoting Lake Carriers' 

Ass'n v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498, 508 (1972)). 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-1569 Document: 01019961369 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 6