NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0259n.06 F iled: May 15, 2008 NO. 07-3943 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT DONALD MICHEL,

P lai nt iff-A ppe lla nt , ON AP P EA L F RO M THE v. UN ITED STA TES D ISTRIC T COURT F OR THE NORT HERN CI TY OF AK

RO N, SUM M IT C OU NT Y, DI STRIC T OF OHI O SUMMIT COUNTY SHERIFF ’S DE P AR TM EN T, W AY NE CO UN TY SHERIF F ’S DE P AR TM EN T, J AM ES P F ISTE R, JENNIF ERLIMBERT, WI LLIA M P ELF RE Y

De fend ant s- App e lle e s. __________________________________/ BEF ORE: G UY , SU HR HEI NRIC H, a nd C OLE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. On No ve mbe r 17 , 20 06 , Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt, Do na ld Mic he l ( “ Mic he l” ), fi le d a 42 U. S.C. § 1 98 3 a c tio n in f eder al court

a g a ins t th e De fe nd ants
Appellee s. Michel cla imed, inte r a lia , that the De fe nd ants vio late d h is F ourt h A me ndme nt r ig hts during their sea

rch and seizures of his pr operty in N ovember of 2004, as par t of their investig ation of Michel f

or oper ating an illeg al g ambling busine ss. I n Marc h of 2007, Michel was indicted i n state court for the violation of various provisions of Oh io law, inc lud ing e ng a g ing in a patte rn of c or ru pt a c tiv ity , mo ne y

la un de ri ng , ta

mpe ri ngwi th evidenc e, for g ery , unlawful g ambling, a nd conductingunlawful ra ffle dr awing s. I n the instant matter, the Def endants filed motions reque sting a bstention under Y

ounger v. Ha rri s , 401 U.S. 37 (1971), due to the pe ndant state c riminal proce eding s. The district cour t issued-2-

an orde r abstainingunder Y ounger and dismissing Michel’ s claims without prejudice. On appea l, Mic hel argues that the district c ourt err ed in a bstaining un d er t he Y

ounger

a bs te nti on do c tr ine , an d th a t sh ou ld w e de c ide a bs te nti on wa s w arr ante d, the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in dismiss ing his c laims without prejudice rat h er t h an s t ay ing the proce eding s. For the rea sons that fo llo w, we a ff

ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on to a bs ta in, but r e mand

the c a se to t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

to sta y Mic he l’ s c la ims un til the c on c lus ion of the state c ri min a l pr oc e e din g s. I. BACKG ROUND On No ve mbe r 1 7, 20 06 , M ic he l f ile d a § 19 83 c la im i n f

e de ra l c ourt

a g a ins t th e De fe nd ants , alleg ing violations of his F ourth, Fifth, Six th, and Four teenth Amendme nt rig hts, as well as ra ising

va ri ou s st a te law c la ims . M ic he l’ s com pl ain t a lle g e d th a t in No ve mbe r o f 2 00 4, the De fe nd ants participated in obtaining se arc h war rants for the purpose of

securi n g evidenc e assoc iated with an

un lawf ul g ambl ingop e ratio n r

un by Mic he l. T he wa

rr ants a uth or ize d th e se arc h a

nd se izur e of

“ a ll g ame s, g ame c omp on e nts , mo ne y , mo ne y dra ft s and

or de rs , f

ina nc ia l in str

ume nts , r e c or ds , computers, a

nd any other e vidence .” Pursuant to the wa rra nts, authorities seized cer

tain “skill-based

ma c hin e s, ” re c or ds , b oo ks , a nd c a shfr om M ic he l’ s pla c e of bu sin e ss. B a sic a lly , M ic he l c la ime d h is rig hts were violated bec ause the “amuse ment machines” taken from his businesses wer e compliant with O hio la

w, as the machines wer e “skill-based” (which are leg al) rathe r than “g ames of c hance .” O nM ar c h5 , 2 0 0 7 , M i c h e l w a s i n d i c t e d i n t h e C o u rt o f C o m m o nP l e a s i nS u m m i tC o u n t y, Ohio for: (1) eng ag ing in a pattern of corr

upt activity , in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32; (2) money launde ri n g, i nv i o l at i o no f O h i o R ev . C o d e § 1 3 1 5

. 5 5 (A )( 1 )- (3 ); (3 ) t am p er i n g wi t hev i d ence, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.12(A)( 1); (4) f org ery , in v i o l ati on of Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.31(A)( 3); (5) unla

wful g ambling, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2915.02(A)( 5); and for (6)-3-

conductingunlawful ra ffle dr awing s, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2915.092(B)

. The De fenda

nts file d m o t i ons to dismi ss on Y ou nge r abstention g rounds, and on Ma y 7, 2007, the district court, findingabstention under Y ounger was wa rra nted, dismissed the case without prejudice

. I I . DI S T RI CT CO UR T ’S APPL I CA T I O N O F YOU NG ER Michel appe als the district c ourt’s decision to r efr ain from exercising jurisdiction under the Y ou nge r abstention doctrine. Under this doctrine , we g ener ally ref rain fr om interferin g

w it h o n g oing state cr iminal procee dings, e x cept under very limit ed cir cumstance s. See Younger , 401 U.S. at 43; Col es v . G ra nv ill e , 448 F.3d 853, 865 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (“When a pe rson is the targ et of a n ong oing state ac tion involvi ng important state interests, a pa rty cannot inter fer e with the pendingstate ac tion by ma int a ini nga

pa ra lle l f e de ra l a c tio n invo lvi ngc la ims tha t c ou ld h ave be e n r a ise d in the state

case .”). After

having revie wed the issues, the record, and oral arg ument of t he parties, we f ind the district c ourt corr ectly decide d to abstain under Y ounger for the rea sons articulated i n its opini on of May 7, 2007. Acc ording ly , we a dopt the district court’s re asoning to the extent that it deter mined abstention under Y

ou nge r was prope r. III. DIST RICT COURT’S DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS WITHOUT P REJUDICE Michel ar g ues t he district cour t should have held his claims in abe y ance rathe r than dismiss ing the m without prejudice. We re view a district c ourt’s dec ision to di smiss a case w ithout prejudice afte r a decision to a bstain u n d er Y

ou nge r for a

n abuse of

discretion. Coles , 448 F.3d at 865. “[T] he appr opriate pr ocedur e, whe n abstaining under Y ounger , i s t o s t ay

t h e p ro ce ed i n gs-4-

rathe r t han to di smiss t he ca se without prejudice .” Brindley v. M cCullen , 61 F.3d 507, 509 (6th Cir. 1995). “I ssuing a stay avoids the costs of refiling, allows the pl aintiffs to reta in their place on the

c ourt do c ke t, a nd avo ids pla c ingpla int if

fs in a so me tim e s d if

fi c ult po sit ion of re fi lin g the ir

c a se befor e the statute of

limit ations expi res.” Id

. I n this case, the statute of limitations on Michel’s Four th A mendment claims beg an to run from the se arc h on November 23, 2004. See Shamaeizadeh v . Cunigan , 182 F.3d 391, 394 ( 6th Cir. 1999) (“ Ty

pically the statute of limit ations for f iling an a ction alleg ing a

n unconstitutional searc h

and se izur e be g ins to r

un a t th e tim e of the inj ur

y . . . . ” ). Di smi ssi ngMic he l’ s c la ims puts h is c la ims at jeopar dy

of beingtime-barr ed upon resolution of the state c riminal proce eding s. There fore , the district court abuse d its discretion in failing to issue a stay
. See Adrian Energy Assocs. v. Mic h. Pub. Serv. Com’n , 481 F.3d 414, 425 (6th Cir. 2007) (“ [I ]n t he intere sts of caution, we are constraine d to r e mand

the c a se to t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

wi th i ns tr

uc tio ns to s tay

rather th an dismis s p la int if fs ’ complaint until the state proce eding s conclude .”) IV. CO NC LU SION F o r th e r e a s o n s s ta

te d a b o v e , w e a f

f ir m t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s a

p p li c a ti o no f

th e Y o u n g er doctrine, but remand the case to the di strict court to stay Michel’s c laims until the conc lusion of the state c ri min a l pr oc e e din g s.