F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 3 , 2 008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1500 2 Non-Argum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 07-01833 -CV -T -24-MSS EURYIA D. MOBLEY, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us MARK MA

NA HU GH , T am

pa Police O ffice r, MICH AE L S PIRE S, Tam pa Police O ffice r. a. k. a . Mi ch ae l S pe ar s, in th ei r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es , Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(S ep te m be r 3, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant E ur

y iaD ia blo Mo ble y , pr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s th e
sua spo nte dis m iss al of

his 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 c om pla int
. Be ca

use the dis tr ic t c ourt,2

i nd i s mi s s i n g P l a i n t i f

f ’s a c t i o ni nd e f

e r e n c e t o ap e n d i n g s t a t e - c o u rtc l a i m,
se em ing ly

did not c onsi de r the r equir ed

f ac tor s; i m pe rmiss ibl y

dis m iss ed

on the basis of judicial ec onomy ; and did n ot applythe presum ption in favor of a federa l
co urt r et ai nin g j ur isd ic tio n, w e va cate the dis m iss al and r em an d. Plaintiff filed a

42 U. S. C. § 198 3 com

plaint allegin g that defendant pol ice officer s Mark Manahugh and Michael Spires had executed an unconstitu tional
se arch an d s ei zure ag ai ns t h im an d h aden ga ge d i n m al ic io us pro se cu ti on . Pl ai nti ff not if ie d th e dis tr ic t c ourt that he ha d ape ndi ng l aw sui t i n st at e co urt on th e sa m e o r si m il ar fa ct s. The district court dism issed Plaintiff’ s com plaint su a sponte. T he court state d, “ Be ca

use pla int if

f m ay obt ai n th e re lie f he se ek s inhis [ state c ourt] sui t, th i s Co u rt , i nth e i n t er es to f ju d i ci al ec o n o m y, de cl i n es t o ad dre s s Pl ai n t i ff ’s cl ai m s atth is ti m e.” W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of af ed er al a ct ionin de fe re nc e to a pendin g state action for an abuse of discretion. Am erican Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Fir st State Ins. Co., 891 F2d 8 82, 884 (11th Cir. 1990 ).

“ [A ] feder al court m ay

dism iss an action because of parallel state c ourt lit igatio n on ly

und er e xc ep tio na l c ir cum stanc es . I nde ed , onl y the c le ar es t of j ust if ic at ion s w ill w ar

rant d ism iss al
. ” I d. ( int er na l c itatio ns and quot at ion sT h e s e ar e th e s i x f a c t o r s : “ ( 1 ) w h e th e r

o n e o f th e c o urt s h a s a s s um e d

j ur i s d i c t i o no v e r

p r o p e rty; 1 (2) the inconvenienc e of the fede ral forum; (3) the potential for piece meal litigation; . . . (4) the orde r in which the for

ums obtained jurisdiction[ ;]
. . . (5) whether state or fe dera l law will be applied; and (6) the a dequac y of the state court to pr otect the parties’ rig hts.” Americ an Ba nkers, 891 F.2d at 884 (citing Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 1236 (1976) and Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Me rcur y Constr., 103 S.C t. 927 (1983)).

3 om itted) (em

phasis add ed). “ The te st for determ ining when exce ption al ci rc um stanc es e xis t . . . inv olv es the c ar ef ul b al an ci ng o f sixf

ac tor s. T he w ei ght

to be giv enany

one f ac tor m ay vary gr eatly de pe ndi ng o n th e ca se ; ho w ev er , the balance is ‘ heavily

we ighted’ in favor of the feder al court exerc ising j urisdictio n.” Id
. 1 T he dis tr ic t c ourt he re abuse d it s di sc re tio n inde cl ini ng t o e xe rc ise it s j urisdictio n and dism issin g Plaintiff’ s action. Se e id. at 885 (reversing where dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to giv e suf

fi ci en t r eg ar d to the pr es um pti on i n f av or of
ex er ci sin g j ur isd ic tio n)
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt se em ing ly w ei ghe d no ne of

the six fa ct or s no r gave suf

fi ci en t r eg ar d to the pr es um pti on i n f av or of e xe rc isi ng j ur isd ic tio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r el ianc e on j udi ci al e co nom y to j ust if y it s dis m iss al is al so n ot s uf

fi ci en t. S ee id. a t 88 6 ( “ Af ed er al c ourt c annot

pr ope rl y d e c l i n e t o e x e r c i s e i t s s t a tu t o ry j u r i s d i c t i o n. . . s i mp l y b e c au s e j u d i c i a l e c o n o my
m ig htbe serve d b y

de ferr in g t o ast at e co urt.”)
. VACATED andREMANDED.