Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-03003/USCOURTS-ca10-95-03003-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

FILED 

Uaited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

OCT 17 1995 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARLTON ALLEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BOARD OF EDUCATION, UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT 436; JACKIE FREISBERG; JOYE 

NUNNELEY; TIM RIGDON; REX BARRETT; 

TIM CARSON; HAROLD L. HOWARD; JOHN 

ANDREW METSKER; SUSAN JOHNSON; NANCY 

ZIMMERMAN; LAURA O'DELL; JULIE JENSEN; 

DOUG JENSEN, in their individual and 

official capacities, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 95-3003 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 93-CV-1321) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

W.J. Fitzpatrick of Fitzpatrick & Bass, Independence, Kansas, for 

Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Kenneth J. Reilly of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Kansas City, Missouri, 

for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before BALDOCK, HOLLOWAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 95-3003 Document: 01019280701 Date Filed: 10/17/1995 Page: 1 
Plaintiff Carlton Allen appeals from an order of the district 

court dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We 

reverse.l 

Mr. Allen had been employed by the defendant Board of 

Education as a school principal for fourteen years. After being 

notified that the Board had decided not to renew his contract for 

the 1993-94 school year, Mr. Allen requested a hearing. After the 

hearing, the Board reaffirmed its decision and Mr. Allen appealed 

to the state district court. The court dismissed the appeal 

holding Mr. Allen could not appeal an administrative decision. 

Mr. Allen then appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals which 

reversed holding that because the Board had been acting in a 

quasi-judicial capacity when conducting the hearing, Mr. Allen 

could appeal. See Allen v. Board of Educ. of Unified Sch. Dist. 

No. 436, 878 P.2d 223 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). Mr. Allen's appeal of 

the Board's decision is currently pending in state court. 

Mr. Allen also commenced a separate original action in state 

court in which he raised both state and federal claims.2 

Mr. Allen sought actual and punitive damages against all 

defendants plus attorney's fees, interest, and costs. Defendants 

removed the action to federal district court. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f) and lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 The federal claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 

and 2 9 U . S . C . § 6 2 3 ( a) ( 1 ) . 

2 

Appellate Case: 95-3003 Document: 01019280701 Date Filed: 10/17/1995 Page: 2 
The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on 

the ground that it had no jurisdiction over the action because 

Mr. Allen's suit was an attempt to collaterally attack the Board's 

decision, an action prohibited by state law. See Francis v. 

Unified Sch. Dist. No. 457, 871 P.2d 1297, 1300-01 (Kan. Ct. App. 

1994) (no collateral action is permitted if statute provides 

exclusive appellate remedy) . 

We do not agree that this case is governed by state law. 

Mr. Allen raised issues of federal law which are now, following 

removal, presented in federal court. Therefore, because Mr. Allen 

has two cases proceeding in two different courts, the court should 

consider whether abstention is appropriate. See Colorado River 

Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 

(1976) (under abstention doctrine, district court may decline to 

exercise or decide to postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction in 

light of parallel state proceedings). 

We must remand this case for the district court to make this 

determination. "We decline to determine in the first instance 

whether deference to the state court proceedings is warranted, for 

to do so would overstep the bounds of our review for abuse of 

discretion and enter the realm of de novo review." Fox v. 

Maulding, 16 F.3d 1079, 1082 (lOth Cir. 1994). 

Before reaching the abstention issue, the district court must 

determine "whether the state and federal proceedings are parallel. 

Suits are parallel if substantially the same parties litigate 

substantially the same issues in different forums." Id. at 1081 

(citations and quotation omitted). The court should "examine the 

3 

Appellate Case: 95-3003 Document: 01019280701 Date Filed: 10/17/1995 Page: 3 
•' 

state proceedings as they actually exist to determine whether they 

are parallel to the federal proceedings," id., resolving any doubt 

"in favor of exercising federal jurisdiction," id. at 1082. 

If the district court determines the cases are not parallel, 

it should proceed. If the cases are parallel, the court must 

decide whether to abstain. Abstention is appropriate where (1) "a 

federal constitutional issue might be mooted or presented in a 

different posture by a state court determination of pertinent 

state law [;] " (2) "difficult questions of state law" are present 

which impact "policy problems of substantial public import whose 

importance transcends the result in the case then at bar[;]" or 

(3) "federal jurisdiction has been invoked for the purpose of 

restraining state criminal proceedings." Colorado River Water, 

424 U.S. at 814-16 (quotation and citations omitted). The court 

should also consider wise judicial administration with regard to 

conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition 

of litigation, id. at 817, and may also look at which court first 

assumed jurisdiction over the action, the inconvenience of the 

federal forum, and the desirability of avoiding piecemeal 

litigation,3 id. at 818. 

These factors are not to be applied as "a mechanical 

checklist," but rather are to be carefully balanced "with the 

3 We note, however that § 1983 was adopted to provide 

alternative, supplemental relief to persons who almost always have 

a state law remedy. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183 (1961), 

overruled on other grounds, Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 

436 U.S. 658 (1978). Therefore, "piecemeal litigation and some 

duplication of judicial effort" is unavoidable to preserve the 

"access to the federal relief which section 1983 assures," Signad, 

Inc. v. City of Sugar Land, 753 F.2d 1338, 1340 (5th 

Cir.) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 474 u.s. 822 (1985). 

4 

Appellate Case: 95-3003 Document: 01019280701 Date Filed: 10/17/1995 Page: 4 
balance heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of 

jurisdiction." Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. 

Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 16 (1983); see also Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 

U.S. 193, 203 (1988) (federal courts have "virtually unflagging 

obligation" to exercise jurisdiction except in extraordinary case 

where continuing proceeding in state court would clearly serve 

"important countervailing interest") (quotations omitted); Colorado 

River Water, 424 U.S. at 813 (abstention is exception not rule). 

No one factor is determinative. Generally, "the pendency of 

an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning 

the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction." Id. at 

817 (quotation omitted). Exhaustion of state administrative 

remedies is not required before bringing a federal action. See 

Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 516 (1982); see also 

McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 146-49, (1992) (identifying 

three broad sets of circumstances where exhaustion not required, 

including when agency lacks authority to adjudicate issue raised 

or to grant relief requested) . 

We note we would be constrained to hold the district court 

had abused its discretion if it were to decide to abstain by 

dismissing this action. A court has no discretion to dismiss 

rather than to stay an action if the plaintiff has set forth 

claims for monetary damages that cannot be redressed in state 

court. See Deakins, 484 U.S. at 202; see also Myers v. Garff, 876 

F.2d 79, 81 (lOth Cir. 1989). Further, this court has expressed a 

general preference in abstention cases for issuance of a stay 

rather than dismissal. 

5 

Appellate Case: 95-3003 Document: 01019280701 Date Filed: 10/17/1995 Page: 5 
We think the better practice is to stay the federal 

action pending the outcome of the state proceedings. In 

the event the state court proceedings do not resolve all 

the federal claims, a stay preserves an available 

federal forum in which to litigate the remaining claims, 

without the plaintiff having to file a new federal 

action. 

Fox, 16 F.3d at 1083; see also Bettencourt v. Board of 

Registration In Medicine, 904 F.2d 772, 781 (1st Cir. 

1990) (expressing preference for staying federal action, in part 

because statute of limitations might otherwise run on federal 

claims pending resolution of state action) . 

We decline to address the issues of immunity raised by 

defendants as they are premature. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for 

further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. 

6 

Appellate Case: 95-3003 Document: 01019280701 Date Filed: 10/17/1995 Page: 6