Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01131/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01131-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
Petitioner
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE

OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, a 

California corporation,

Petitioner,

CIV. NO. S-10-1131 LKK/JFM

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, a

California state agency and ORDER

DOES 1-50,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner California Correctional Peace Officers Association

(“CCPOA”) has filed a motion to remand, which was heard on June 7,

2010. As the court explained at oral argument, it appears that it

may be appropriate to enjoin state court proceedings in order to

protect the Coleman court’s jurisdiction and to effectuate the

court’s judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283, see also Atlantic Coast

Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S.

281, 295 (1970) (noting that the distinction between “aid of its

jurisdiction” and “effectuate its judgments” exceptions to the

Anti-Injunction Act is less than clear).

Case 2:10-cv-01131-LKK-JFM Document 35 Filed 06/07/10 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

2

As neither party has briefed this issue, the court directs the

parties to submit further briefing on the following questions:

1. Whether the proceedings in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger,

No. 2:90-cv-00520 (E.D. Cal.) are, for purposes of the

Anti-Injunction Act, akin to the school desegregation

and multidistrict litigation proceedings discussed in,

for example, Miller v. Brooks (In re Am. Honda Motor

Co.), 315 F.3d 417, 439 (4th Cir. 2003), Zurich Am. Ins.

Co. v. Superior Court for Cal., 326 F.3d 816, 825-826

(7th Cir. 2003), Battle v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co.,

877 F.2d 877, 882 (11th Cir. 1989) and United States v.

District of Columbia, 654 F.2d 802, 810 (D.C. Cir.

1981). See also Wright & Miller, 17A Fed. Prac. & Proc.

Juris. § 4225 (3d ed.).

2. Assuming that Coleman is such a case, whether CCPOA’s

CEQA claims would so “frustrate the federal court’s

effective disposition of” Coleman as to be inconsistent

with the continuing exercise of jurisdiction in Coleman.

See, e.g., U.S. v. D.C., 654 F.2d at 810.

3. Assuming that this case falls within an exception to the

Anti-Injunction Act, what procedures govern issuance of

an injunction.

4. Assuming that this case falls within an exception to the

Anti-Injunction Act, whether the availability of an

injunction may provide an independent basis for removal,

notwithstanding Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537

Case 2:10-cv-01131-LKK-JFM Document 35 Filed 06/07/10 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

3

U.S. 28, 34 (2002).

The parties may also address any other issue related to the

above. The court does not require further briefing on respondent

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s

invocation of the federal officer removal statute except insofar

as the federal officer removal question relates to the issues

enumerated above.

Each party MAY file a brief not to exceed twenty (20) pages.

Said brief may be filed no later than 5 p.m. on Friday, June 18,

2010. Each party MAY file a reply brief not to exceed ten (10)

pages no later than 5 p.m. on Thursday, June 24, 2010. Hearing on

the matter is SET for 10 a.m. on Wednesday June 30, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 7, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01131-LKK-JFM Document 35 Filed 06/07/10 Page 3 of 3