NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

CHARLES KING, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1231 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

CITY OF LONG BRANCH, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF brings this action, inter alia, to recover

damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was

wrongfully terminated from his employment as a police officer. 

(Dkt. entry no. 3, Am. Compl.) The Court’s own research reveals

that the plaintiff has brought state proceedings seeking review

of the decision to terminate his employment. See, e.g.,

http://www.state.nj.us/csc/msb/agenda11/042011a.pdf (4-20-11 New

Jersey Civil Service Commission Agenda at 7).

A DISTRICT COURT must abstain from exercising jurisdiction

in an action if there are (1) state proceedings that are related

and pending, (2) important state interests implicated therein,

and (3) adequate opportunities to raise federal claims therein. 

Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S.

423, 435 (1982); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). A

district court should stay a federal action — rather than dismiss

a complaint — if the state proceedings are administrative in

Case 3:11-cv-01231-MLC-TJB Document 11 Filed 05/03/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 121
nature, to assure that the federal claims are actually resolved. 

Gwynedd Props. v. Lower Gwynedd Twp., 970 F.2d 1195, 1204 & n.14

(3d Cir. 1992) (stating district court is without discretion to

dismiss, rather than stay, monetary-relief claim that may not be

redressed in state proceeding); Bongiorno v. Lalomia, 851 F.Supp.

606, 610-17 (D.N.J.) (staying action sua sponte, rather than

dismissing complaint, as monetary-damage claim might not be

resolved in pending state proceeding), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1168 (3d

Cir. 1994). State administrative proceedings are considered to

be “proceedings” under Younger. See Zahl v. Harper, 282 F.3d

204, 209 (3d Cir. 2002) (stating same). Proceedings concerning

the discipline of police officers implicate important state

interests under Younger. See Terry v. Town of Morristown, No.

06-1788, 2007 WL 2085351, at *4 (D.N.J. July 17, 2007).

THE DETERMINATION on the termination of the plaintiff’s

employment is subject to a review by the New Jersey state courts. 

See N.J.Ct.R. 2:2-3 (setting forth procedure for further review by

New Jersey Appellate Division); N.J. Law Enforcement Supervisors

Ass’n v. New Jersey, 414 N.J.Super. 111, 117 (N.J. App. Div. 2010)

(reviewing denial by Office of Employee Relations of request for

certain relief).

THE COURT thus intends to (1) stay this action, and (2)

administratively terminate this action with leave to the

plaintiff to move to reopen when the related proceedings have

2

Case 3:11-cv-01231-MLC-TJB Document 11 Filed 05/03/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 122
been resolved through all of the administrative and state-court

levels available. The plaintiff, if so moving in the future,

should demonstrate that (1) pursuit of the federal claims was

attempted in the related proceedings, and (2) the state

administrative and appellate remedies available in the related

proceedings have been exhausted. The plaintiff must proceed — in

view of the relief that he has sought so far — at the state level

first. See Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Ass’n v. Vespa-Papaleo, 339

Fed.Appx. 232, 237, 239 (3d Cir. 2009) (stating in Younger

analysis that proper forum for review of New Jersey state

agency’s final decision is New Jersey Appellate Division); W.K.

v. N.J. Div. of Dev’l Disabilities, 974 F.Supp. 791, 794 (D.N.J.

1997) (stating proper forum for review of state agency’s final

decision is New Jersey Appellate Division, as for Younger

purposes the administrative and appeals process is treated as a

unitary system).

AN ORDER administratively terminating an action is not the

equivalent of a dismissal of a complaint with prejudice, and is

issued pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to control the

docket and in the interests of judicial economy. See Delgrosso

v. Spang & Co., 903 F.2d 234, 236 (3d Cir. 1990) (stating

administrative termination is not a final determination, as it

“permits reinstatement and contemplates the possibility of future

proceedings”, and “does not purport to end litigation on the

3

Case 3:11-cv-01231-MLC-TJB Document 11 Filed 05/03/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 123
merits”). For good cause appearing, the Court will issue an

appropriate order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: May 3, 2011

4

Case 3:11-cv-01231-MLC-TJB Document 11 Filed 05/03/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 124