*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 4 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LARA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LAWRENCE RAEL, Chief Administrative Officer, in his official capacity; CITY PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-2217 (D.C. No. CIV-95-366-BB) (District of New Mexico)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , LUCERO and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. Robert Lara, previously an employee of the City of Albuquerque, appeals the district court’s decision to stay his federal c ourt action against the city, in which he alleges breach of contract and denial of h is rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu tion. Because the district court failed to provide reasons for its discretiona ry decision to grant the stay sought by the city, we reverse and remand.-2-

The substance of Mr. Lara’s claims against Albuquer que is not before us; we therefore cite only those facts relevant to our disposition of the present procedural matter. After he was fired by the city, Mr. Lara challenged his termination before a municipal administrative body, which ruled against his claim. Mr. Lara also filed a state court action al leging, among other things, breach of contract and denial of his Fourth and Fou rteenth Amendment Rights. Appellee removed that action to federal court. Sho rtly thereafter, Mr. Lara filed another state court action, this time appealing dis missal of the earlier administrative proceedings. When this latter actio n was pending in state court, appellee moved the district court to enter an order of abstention and stay the federal proceedings pending resolution of the ongoi ng state action between the two parties. Citing Colorado River Water Conservat ion Dist. v. United States , 424 U.S. 800 (1976), the district court granted the motion “pending resolution of the parallel state court action . . . now pending . . . .” Appellant’s App. at 18. Under the Colorado Riverabstention doctrine, district courts may abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction when certain fact ors weigh in favor of deference to contemporaneous “parallel” state court proceedin gs. Fox v. Maulding , 16 F.3d 1079, 1081-82 (10th Cir. 1994). “Suits are paralle l if substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues in d ifferent forums.” Id. at 1081 (quoting New Beckley Mining Corp. v. International Union, UMWA , 946 F.2d-3-

1072, 1073 (4th Cir. 1991)). If the district court determines that the suits are parallel, it may abstain in “exceptional circumstan ces” upon consideration of a number of factors, including: (1) the inconvenience of the federal forum; (2) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; and (3) the order in which the courts assumed jurisdiction. Id. at 1082. The decision to abstain under Colorado River is left to the discretion of the district court. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1, 19 (1983). “If we are to conduct any meani ngful review of a district court's exercise of discretion under the Colorado R iverdoctrine, the court must make its findings about the parallel nature of the state and federal proceedings and the balance of the factors on the record." Id. at 1082. Here, the district court did not explain why the state court proceedings wer e parallel, what Colorado Riverfactors it considered, and what weight it attached to each in its determination to abstain. Therefore, the findings are insufficient for our review and the case must be remanded for further considera tion. Id. REVERSED and REMANDED for additional proceedings co nsistent with this order and judgment. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge