# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 38 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Sh irl ey Cu rd ; Dav id Bren na n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Ci ty of Sea rcy, Arka ns as

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 27 , 20 18 Fil ed : Oct ob er 1 1, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Sh irl ey Cu rd an d he r so n Dav id Bren na n (co ll ect iv el y , th e Cu rd s) ap pe al fro m th e or de r of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t di sm is si ng wit ho ut pre jud ic e th ei r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 1

The Hon or ab le Bi ll y Ro y W il so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.co m

pl ai nt ag ai n s t t h e Ci ty o f Sear cy , Ar ka ns as , u nd er You ng er v. Harri s, 40 1 U.S. 37 (1 97 1) , an d de nyin g a s mo o t t h ei r pe nd in g m ot io ns

. The Cu rd s fir st arg ue th at th ei r cas e f

a l l s wit hi n th e ba d fai th ex cep ti on to You ng er ab st en ti on se t fo rth in Pl ou ffe v. Lig on , 6 0 6 F

. 3 d 89 0, 89 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (s ta ti ng th at “ a fed eral co ur t sh ou ld no t ab st ai n if th ere is a sh owi ng of ‘bad f a i t h , h a r as sm en t, or so m e ot he r

ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ce th at w o u l d m ak e ab st en ti on in ap pr op ria te ’”) (q uo ti ng Mi dd le se x Ct y

. Eth ic s Co m m

. v. Gard en St at e Bar Ass ’n, 45 7 U.S. 42 3, 43 5 (1 98 2) ). The y al so co nt en d th at th e Dis tri ct Co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n, en ga ge d in jud ic ia l

m is co nd uc t, an d ab an do ne d it s ro le as an im pa rti al arb it er; th at th ei r § 19 83 act io n fo r

m on ey da m ag es di d no t in te rfer e wit h th e on go in g st at e cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s; an d
t h at th e Dis tri ct Co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by di sm is si ng th ei r act io n fo r la c k o f

su bs ta nt ia l p ro gr es s.

Upo n rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at t he Dis tri ct Co ur t’s su a sp on te de ci si on to ab st ai n un de r You ng er was ap pr op ria te

. See Ton y Alam o Ch ris ti an Mi ni st rie s v. Sel ig , 66 4 F.3 d 12 45 , 12 4 9 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 12 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at un de r th e You ng er do ct rin e, “ pr in ci pl es of co m it y an d fed eral is m ” req ui re th at “fe d eral co ur ts sh ou ld ab st ai n fro m ex erci si ng th ei r juri sd ic ti on if (1 ) th ere is an on go in g st at e pr oc eed in g, (2 ) th at im

pl ic at es im

po rta nt st at e in te res ts , an d (3 ) th at pr ov id es a n a d e qu at e op po rtu ni ty t o rai se an y r e l e v a n t fed eral qu es ti on s” ). W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at th e ba d fai th ex cep ti on to You n g er ab st en ti on is no t ap pl ic ab le an d th at th e pl ai nt iff s’

rem ai ni ng arg um en ts are wi th ou t m eri t. We affir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-