Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02824/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02824-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

- 1 -

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAVIN B. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TIMOTHY G. O’CONNOR,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 18cv2824-LAB (LL)

ORDER STAYING CASE; 

ORDER OF REMAND

On January 9, 2018, this Court ordered Plaintiff Gavin Davis to show cause why his 

case should not be dismissed without prejudice under the Younger abstention doctrine. 

Dkt. 5. Davis has now responded to the OSC.1 For the reasons below, the Court finds that 

this case should be STAYED under the Younger abstention doctrine until the termination of

the state court proceedings. Additionally, to the extent the state court has construed Davis’ 

“Notice of Removal” as a proper removal of San Diego Superior Court Case No. 

M242946DV to federal court, that action is REMANDED.

The Court’s previous orders detail the procedural history of this case, so the Court 

does not dwell on it here. In short, Davis is a defendant in an ongoing state criminal 

prosecution in which Defendant Timothy O’Connor is the prosecutor. Davis brought this 

Section 1983 suit alleging that O’Connor brought false charges against him and then 

 

1 Davis also appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. 7. As explained previously, because Davis’ 

appeal was taken from a non-appealable order, this Court retains jurisdiction. See Dkt. 10. 

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 19 Filed 01/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

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

withheld exculpatory evidence. Davis subsequently filed a “Notice of Removal,” in which he 

sought to remove the entire state criminal case to federal court. Dkt. 4. This Court issued 

an order instructing Davis to show cause why the civil action should not be dismissed under 

the Younger abstention doctrine and the criminal case remanded for lack of federal 

jurisdiction. Dkt. 5. Davis has now responded.

I. Younger Abstention

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny generally direct federal courts 

to abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief that would interfere with pending state 

judicial proceedings. Hirsh v. Justices of Supreme Court of State of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 712 

(9th Cir. 1995). Absent “extraordinary circumstances”, abstention in favor of state judicial 

proceedings is required if the state proceedings (1) are ongoing, (2) implicate important 

state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims. 

See Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).

Abstention, however, is not limited to requests for injunctive or declaratory relief. As 

the Ninth Circuit has noted, abstention is also appropriate in suits for money damages under 

Section 1983 where the federal action would have “a substantially disruptive effect upon 

ongoing state criminal prosecutions.” Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1448 (9th Cir. 1986). 

This is because “a determination that the federal plaintiff's constitutional rights have been 

violated would have the same practical effect as a declaration or injunction on pending state 

proceedings.” Gilbertson v. Albirght, 381 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2004). The key question 

in such cases is whether the plaintiff (usually the state court defendant) can “adequately 

litigate” the underlying constitutional claim as part of the state court proceedings. Id.

The Court here finds that the three Middlesex County factors are present and that 

Younger abstention is appropriate. The first two factors are plainly met here: (1) the state 

court prosecution was commenced in April 2018, months before Plaintiff filed this suit, and 

(2) the case implicates an important state interest in conducting its criminal prosecutions 

free of interference, as Plaintiff himself admits. See Response to OSC, Dkt. 17, at ¶11. 

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 19 Filed 01/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
- 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

The only question here is whether Plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to litigate his 

federal claims—that is, his allegations that the prosecutor brought false changes and willfully 

suppressed evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)—as part of the 

state proceedings. The Supreme Court has cautioned that courts should assume, in the 

absence of evidence to the contrary, that state courts will protect federal constitutional rights. 

See Middlesex County, 457 U.S. at 431 (“Minimal respect for the state processes, of course, 

precludes any presumption that the state courts will not safeguard federal constitutional 

rights.”); see also Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (“[A] federal court 

should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of 

unambiguous authority to the contrary.”). Indeed, abstention is warranted “unless state law 

clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional claims.” Middlesex Cty., 457 U.S. at 432. 

In other words, it is not enough that Davis believes he is getting short shrift in state court. 

The only way he can get this claim adjudicated in federal court during the pendency of the 

state prosecution is if he is actually prevented by state law from raising his constitutional 

claims. 

Here, Davis has not plausibly pled that he is unable to raise his federal claims in state 

court. He notes in his complaint that he provided the state prosecutors with letters informing 

them that they were violating their Brady obligations and were pursuing a prosecution based 

on false statements. See, e.g., Complaint, Dkt. 1, at ¶¶12-13, 16-17, 19. But the more 

appropriate course of action if documents are being withheld would be to file a motion to 

compel disclosure of the exculpatory documents or to file a similar motion for additional 

discovery. See, e.g., People v. Rose, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 516, 522 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

(discussing motions to compel in the context of alleged Brady violations). If Davis maintains 

that the prosecution was brought maliciously or in spite of questionable evidence, he should 

file a motion to dismiss. But a federal lawsuit is not an appropriate substitute for state court 

motion practice absent any evidence that Davis is being precluded from properly litigating 

his constitutional claims. 

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 19 Filed 01/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

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

Davis suggests that the prosecutor’s Brady violations somehow render his case 

immune from Younger abstention. In his view, because Brady violations are not an “integral” 

part of the judicial system, the Court should not abstain from hearing his case. See 

Response to OSC, Dkt. 17, at ¶7(i). It’s not clear where Davis derives this argument, but 

he appears to be conflating abstention with prosecutorial immunity. See, e.g., Imbler v. 

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 443 (1976) (“[L]ower courts have held that unconstitutional 

suppression of exculpatory evidence is beyond the scope of ‘duties constituting an integral

part of the judicial process’ and have refused to extend absolute immunity to suits based on 

such claims.”) (emphasis added). But the question of O’Connor’s immunity is not presently 

before the court, so this argument has no bearing on whether abstention is proper.

In short, there is nothing unique about Davis’ suit that would render it immune from 

abstention—the basis of every Section 1983 lawsuit is an allegation that the government 

has done something unconstitutional. The question in abstention cases is simply whether 

that allegation can be properly be litigated as part of an ongoing state proceeding. If it can, 

federal courts should abstain. Davis has not convincingly explained why his federal claims 

cannot be litigated in state court and, for that reason, this Court will ABSTAIN from hearing 

his case under the Younger doctrine. 

In its prior orders, the Court suggested that if Younger abstention applied, the case 

would be dismissed without prejudice. It is true that in most situations Younger abstention 

requires dismissal. The Ninth Circuit, however, has held that where a plaintiff seeks money 

damages rather than injunctive relief, the Court should stay the action until the termination 

of the state court proceedings rather than dismiss the action without prejudice. See 

Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 981-82. Accordingly, this action is STAYED pending the termination 

of the underlying state court proceedings. Absent a compelling reason, no discovery or 

motions will be permitted prior to that time, but Davis shall still ensure that Defendant is 

timely served with process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. O’Connor shall appear 

once he is served, but his obligation to respond to Davis’ complaint is tolled until further 

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 19 Filed 01/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
- 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

order of the Court. The parties shall notify the Court of the outcome of the state court action

within 30 days of the termination of those proceedings.

II. Removal and Remand

After filing this Section 1983 suit, Davis filed a “Notice of Removal” in which he 

apparently seeks to remove the entirety of the state court prosecution (San Diego Superior 

Court Criminal Case No. M242946DV) to federal court. Dkt. 4. The Court detailed in its 

OSC the various problems with this attempted removal, and Davis has waived arguments 

to the contrary by not raising them in his response.2 To the extent the state court has 

interpreted Davis’ “Notice of Removal” as removing Case No. M242946DV to federal court, 

that action is REMANDED to San Diego Superior Court for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

 

2 Davis suggests that he was unable to address the removal issue in his OSC response

given the ten-page limit imposed. The Court can’t accept this argument. The more plausible 

explanation given his failure to allot even one paragraph to the issue is that Davis has no 

credible argument that removal was proper. The Court deems Davis’ argument for removal 

waived.

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 19 Filed 01/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5