Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01938/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01938-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES M. LANIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OFFICIALS 

ASSOCIATION, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01938-EPG

ORDER RE: ABSTENTION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action on December 4, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On 

November 23, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Scheduling Report indicating that a potentially 

related state case, Lanier v. San Joaquin Valley Officials Association et al., No. 13CECG02843 

(the “State Action”), was currently pending in Fresno County Superior Court. Based on this 

representation, the Court requested that the parties provide briefing on the status of the State 

Action, including the claims alleged and procedural posture. In the briefing, Defendants suggest 

that the present case should be stayed pending the outcome of the State Action based on the 

principle of Younger abstention. 

After considering the briefing submitted, the Court has determined that a stay in this case 

is not warranted at this time. Younger does not apply because the Court has not been asked to 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 28 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 3
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

intervene or otherwise interfere with the State Action. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 

(1971) ("the normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in 

state courts is not to issue such injunctions"); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 

1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (“once the three Middlesex elements are satisfied, the court does not 

automatically abstain, but abstains only if there is a Younger-based reason to abstain—i.e., if the 

court‟s action would enjoin, or have the practical effect of enjoining, ongoing state court 

proceedings”). 

Other types of abstention are likewise inappropriate at this juncture. As a general rule, 

“federal courts have „a virtually unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the jurisdiction given 

them” and “only „exceptional circumstances‟ can justify departure from the general rule that 

federal courts must exercise the jurisdiction granted to them.” Jenkins v. City of Richmond, No. 

C08-03401 MHP, 2009 WL 35224, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2009), quoting Colorado River Water 

Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). This rule is particularly acute 

when a Plaintiff asserts federal claims in the civil rights context, as Plaintiff has done here. Id. at 

*4 (“the civil rights context militates more strongly in favor of federal courts exercising their 

jurisdiction”), citing Tovar v. Billmeyer, 609 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1979). Here, the State 

Action alleges state law claims that are different than those asserted by the current action. The 

resolution of the claims in the State Action will not necessarily resolve the claims in the current 

case. At this point, the State Action is also in default and it is unknown whether default will be 

set aside. 

This is not to say, however, that each case must operate in a vacuum. The Court is aware 

that the State Action and this case involve the same parties and appear to involve similar facts. 

Other similarities may reveal themselves as the cases progress. It is possible that the parties may 

choose to consolidate these actions or otherwise coordinate these actions. See Cartwright v. Univ. 

of Cal., Davis, No. 2:05cv0725-MCE-KJM, 2006 WL 902568, at *6 (E.D. Cal. April 5, 2006) 

(“allowing 05-cv-0725-MCE-KJM and 05-cv-2439-MCE-KJM to proceed leaves open the 

possibility that the parties will ultimately agree to litigate all claims in one comprehensive 

action”). The parties may decide to coordinate discovery efforts in the two cases to aid 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 28 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 3
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

efficiency. And decisions in one case may be instructive or even collaterally estop issues in the 

other. The parties are invited to keep the Court apprised to the extent that developments in the 

State Action may inform the proceedings in this action. 

Nevertheless, the Court holds that abstention is inappropriate at this time and this action 

will proceed consistent with the Scheduling Conference Order of December 15, 2015. (ECF No. 

25.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 28 Filed 01/19/16 Page 3 of 3