Document: 421 U.S. 426 95 S.Ct. 1691. 44 L.Ed.2d 274 Tom E. ELLIS and Robert D. Love, Petitioners,v.Frank M. DYSON et al. No. 73—130. Argued Nov. 12, 1974. Decided May 19, 1975. Syllabus After being convicted fined by the Municipal Court, on pleas of nolo contendere, for violating Dallas loitering ordinance, petitioners, rather than seeking a trial de novo in County Court thus subjecting themselves to possibility larger fine, brought action Federal District challenging constitutionality ordinance declaratory other relief. The dismissed action, holding that federal injunctive relief against future state criminal prosecutions was not available absent allegations bad-faith prosecution, harassment, or unusual circumstances presenting likelihood irreparable injury petitioners if were enforced, result felt be mandated decision Becker v. Thompson, 459 F.2d 919 (CA5), wherein it held principles Younger Harris, 401 37, applied only where prosecution actually pending, but also merely threatened. Appeals affirmed. Held: Since subsequently reversed Staffel 415 452, is precluded when based upon an assertedly unconstitutional statute has been threatened, even showing enforcement special made, Appeals' judgment case remanded reconsideration light Steffel as whether there genuine threat relationship between past alleged prosecutions. Pp. 433-434. 475 1402, remanded. Burt Neuborne, New York City, petitioners. Douglas H. Conner, III, Dallas, Tex., respondents. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 This instituted United States Northern Texas, challenges city Dallas. We do reach merits, under compulsion procedural precedent Fifth Circuit which we have since reversed. 2 * Petitioners Ellis while automobile, arrested Dllas at a.m. January 18, 1972, charged with city's ordinance. That § 31—60 1960 Revised Code Civil Criminal Ordinances City amended Ordinance 12991, adopted July 20, 1970, provides: 3 'It shall unlawful any person loiter, hereinafter defined, in, about place, public private, such accompanied acitivity afford probable cause alarm concern safety well-being persons security property, surrounding area.' term 'loiter' defined 4 'include following activities: walking aimlessly without apparent purpose; lingering; hanging around; lagging behind; idle spending time; delaying; sauntering moving slowly about, conduct due physical defects conditions.' 5 A violation classified misdemeanor punishable fine more $200. 6 Before their Court1 sought writ prohibition from Texas preclude ground its face. App. 29. contended, particular, vague overbroad, 'permits arrest basis only,' allows offense 'upon moment-by-moment opinions suspicions police officer patrol.' 31. Appeals, however, denied application February 21, 1972.2 day proceeded try case. overruling petitioners' motion dismiss charges grounds ordinance's unconstitutionality, court accepted contendere3 each petitioner $10 plus $2.50 costs. 7 Under Texas' two-tier justice system, could directly appeal entitled seek Court,4 Vernon's Ann.Tex.Code Crim.Proc., Art. 44.17 (1966), filing least $50 bond within 10 days Court's judgment. Arts. 44.13 44.16. At would subject same maximum Appellate review imposed exceeded $100. 4.03. 8 Electing avoid imposition present action5 civil rights statutes, 42 U.S.C. 19836 28 §§ 1343(3) (4), Declaratory Judgment Act, 2201 2202. Named defendants, both individual official capacities, then chief police, attorney, manager, clerk Courts, mayor. unconstitutional. They complained places too much discretion arresting officers, proscribes may constitutionally limited, impermissibly chills free speech, association, assembly, movement. equitable form expunction records arrests convictions some counteraction distribution law agencies information convictions. No them requested. Cf. Reed Giarrusso, 462 706 (CA5 1972). 9 moved summary pleadings, admissions, affidavits, 'other matters record.' 42. respondents, turn, suggested, well, 'that abstention doctrine applicable.' Id., 58. no allegation harm enforced. result, concluded, controlling In Becker, had 91 746, 27 669 (1971), complaint contained insufficient harm, dismissed. 358 F.Supp. 262 (1973).7 affirmed opinion. 1402 (1973). unanimously relied, 94 1209, 39 505 (1974), granted petition certiorari. 416 954, 1967, 40 305 (1974). II considered issue should apply challenged threatened pending. case, his companion, engaged protest handbilling shopping center. Police informed they Georgia trespass did desist. ceased activity, companion persisted endeavor charged. 11 filed suit 1983 1343 judgment8 First Fourteenth Amendments. It stipulated returned refused request stop handbilling, warrant sworn out he might statute. U.S., 456, 1214. Contrary views 'federal pending plaintiff demonstrates disputed statute, attack made face applied.' 475, 1224. 12 Thus, Steffel, rejected argument unique extraordinary must shown before invoked prosecution. Unlike situation cf. Samuels Mackell, 66, 764, 688 simply considerations equity, comity, federalism less vitality.9 Instead, opportunity adjudication constitutional forum, authorized becomes paramount. 462—463, 1217—1218. 13 Exhaustion judicial administrative remedies ruled necessary, long requirement. 472—473, 1222—1223. See, e.g., Monroe Pape, 365 167, 183, 81 473, 481, 492 (1961). require, clearly demonstrated continuing, actual controversy, 2201, III Constitution itself. Although noted 459, 1215, threats 'imaginary speculative,' those terms used Younger, 42, 749, determine, among things, controversy still live continuing. See 460, 1216. observed directed our Government's policy Vietnam 'the recent developments reducing Nation's involvement part world' ignored, so longer existed "a substantial parties having adverse legal interests, sufficient immediacy reality issuance judgment." ibid., quoting Maryland Casualty Co. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 270, 273, 61 510, 512, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941). 14 approach are applicable here. decided this misapprehension well already Those courts reason merits determine existence inquire into similar activity future. Now decided, these issues properly investigated. 15 therefore reverse remand reversing Thompson. appropriate observe passing, possess greater reservations here exists today. First, oral counsel acknowledged touch clients approximately year unaware clients' whereabouts. Tr. Oral Arg. 5—7, 18 22, 25—26. Petitioners, apparently, apprised progress litigation. Unless found time considers remand, highly doubtful exist; elemental controversy. Further, frequent most unlikely sufficiently possible violations established. 16 Second, question record now stands regarding pattern statute's enforcement. Answers interrogatories reveal average somewhat two per during seven specified months 1972 statutory offense. 68. Of course, will find desirable examine current scheme order whether, indeed, credible assuming physically loitering. meaning said exist. 458—460, 1215—1216. generally O'Shea Littleton, 414 488, 493—499, 669, 38 674 (1974); Boyle Landry, 77, 81, 758, 760, 696 (1971). alive stage n. 10, 1216, cases cited therein. 17 Because fact consider because grave concluded inappropriate us complex difficult otherwise present. litigation meets threshold requirements can resolution questions interaction prosecutions, potential considerations, context doctrine, res judicata, plea failure utilize appellate remedy them. Expunction nature corrective respect thereto another claim time. further proceedings consistent costs allowed. 19 Reversed 20 REHNQUIST, concurring. 21 I join add few words indicate why believe quite correct leaving treated dissenting my Brother POWELL concurring WHITE. 22 respondents' regarded prior 1972), controlling. While keeping conventional first inquired suggested POWELL, cannot fault disposing what authoritative decision. Indeed, occasion followed essentially practice. Secretary Navy Avrech, 418 676, 3039, 41 1033 Augenblick, 393 348, 89 528, 537 (1969). confirmed understanding order, 1973). 23 Later dispositive bar access proceeding emphasized 'an 'actual controversy,' requirement Constitution.' 458, S.Ct., 1215. Properly viewed, therefore, directs requisite presented, appropriateness 24 give reconsider jurisdictional framework pass instance Brothers WHITE decide today, entirely appropriate. read intimating either contrary Brethren, am content leave consideration instance. 25 WHITE, part. 26 except insofar fails affirm dismissal below prayer mandatory injunction requiring records. With issue, prerequisite present; plainly dismissing ruling merits. Huffman Pursue, Ltd., 420 592, 1200, 43 482 (1975), appear require much. whom STEWART joins, THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins Part II, dissenting. each. right imposing excess $100 Appeals. determination highest had, upheld appealable 1257(2). 29 deliberately elected forgo remedies, allowed become final, thereafter Petitioners' attacked forms relief:1 (i) characterized injunction, expunging loitering; (ii) unconstitutional, i.e., requested relief, 30 relying reverses remands finds unnecessary expunction. disagreement points. hold previous barred contendere pleas, equivalent guilty,2 deliberate remedies. As prospective think general justiciability adheres affirmance, reversal remand. view undisputed facts now. ends served Moreover, today's decision, especially reading seems likely confuse faced increasing number raising problems. 31 turn retrospective petitioners: raised resort collaterally conviction knowingly pleaded guilty charge failed invoke below,3 courts,4 argued Court.5 recognizes, ante, 435, unaffected relevant moot concerns bearing see justification deferring important issue. 32 Collateral normally comes habeas corpus 2241 seq. proceedings, court's binding court. Brown Allen, 344 443, 73 397, 97 469 (1953). neither incarcerated nor restrained satisfy custody jurisdiction. E.g., Carafas LaVallee, 391 234, 88 1556, 554 (1968). accordingly 1983, invalidated, declared void, thereof expunged. 33 never expressly problem depends extent which, judicata relitigation party. But need resolve here.6 For assuming, arguendo, scope collateral expansive actions clear beyond barred. If confined habas petitions court, doubt above, pleas. settled defendants plead charges, claims antecedent independent Tollett Henderson, 411 258, 267, 93 1602, 1608, 36 235 circumstances, voluntary intelligent character' Ibid.7 1608. afforded them, deny relief.8 Fay Noia, 372 391, 438—439, 83 822, 848 849, 837 (1963). When defendant pleads refuses rest denial right. rests solely defendant's refusal litigate asserted cognizable knowing voluntary. was, foreclosed. id., 468—472, 846—866 (Harlan, J., dissenting). 34 These established jurisdiction equal force attempts convictions.9 does allow circumvention processes, impeachment action. 35 declaration future, holds '(t)he applicable' Ante, 433, 434. view, disposition seriously misreads Steffel. ignores necessity, fully recognized make justiciable indispensable condition exercise power. A. question, challenge filed, parties: 37 'Basically, alleged, all show judgment.' test met arguably showed imminent prospect He previously distributing handbills center, occasions continued activity. On second occasion, avoided premises. His who leave, arraigned trespass. 'if (to center) statute.' said: '(P)etitioner speculative' . .. twice warned protected told again center disobeys warning prosecuted. petitioner's ample demonstration 'chimerical,' Poe Ullman, 367 497, 508, 1752, 1758—1759, 989 necessary expose himself deters rights.' put opinion: 'The succeeded objectively arrest, corroborated created concrete agents State.' 476, differs respects. 'loitering' section remote residences. Whether subsequent survived challenge, timely matter irrelevant evidence realistic and, causes real immediate harm. 496, preconditions exist Application depends, terms, extremely exact set leading ever repeated. brief, attempting accommodate Steffel's rationale, refers vaguely 'petitioners' fear prosecution.'10 Read generously, supporting materials barren relating arrests, substantiating fears 'fear' mentioned occurring 'at rate day.'11 one million hardly represents high-risk anyone, certainly poses particularized appearing position different arrested, chances streets Dallas.12 B 45 several statutes justiceable despite absence personally plaintiff. Doe Bolton, 410 179, 188—189, 739, 745—746, 201 (1973); Lake Carriers' Assn. MacMullan, 406 498, 506—508, 92 1749, 1755—1756, 257 (1972). CSC Letter Carriers, 413 548, 551 553, 2880, 2883—2884, 796 particularly unambiguously activities regularly engage. claimed State Government, prohibiting activities, substantive limitations powers. plaintiffs, choice.13 available, compelled choose risk conformity incur deprivation tangible forgoing rights. 'controversy real.' Assn., supra, 1757. 46 depart analysis. difference above lies involved. concerned not, face, susceptible multitude applications exceed officials construed precise proposed engage There confronted choice identical principle practical consequence plaintiffs cases: engaging specific believed Amendment. Whichever immediate. 47 pleadings like circumstances. aver 'chilling' effect Amendment speech association. averment, moreover, related specifically, 'citizens Dallas.'14 theoretically infringe rights, nothing respective indicates indeed anyone else. short, rely speculative deterrent conceivably citizens. nowhere alleges particular protection, Compare Public Workers Mitchell, 330 75, 86—91, 67 556, 562—565, 754 (1947). discussed demonstrate, restraint events personal complaining parties. accord responsibility adjudge, involving constitutionality, freedom definite side prejudicial interferences other.' Workers, 90,15 564. C 48 demonstrate suffering 'real immediate' consequent opinion, states 'had future.' 433. To contrary, hold, erroneously, stated relief.16 if, apparently believes, assumed itself constitute departure thought adjudication. obligation, cases, taking true, justiciable. need—indeed, jurisdiction—to further. 49 supra. want grant prayed immune suit. Seventh reversed, What equally here: power allege Plaintiffs 'must resulting putatively illegal assume jurisdiction." 493, 675, Linda R. S. Richard D., 614, 617, 1146, 1148, 536 (1973) (emphasis added). 50 parties, complaint, acknowledges serious 'whether today.' (Emphasis added.) relates facts, record, occurred filed. concession whereabouts unknown them,17 exists. critical declines address, 51 mootness altogether immaterial initially sought. Only specific, attach. And persists granted.18 precisely resolving just issues; first, filed; proper passage subsided. purpose indisputably outset, grant. 52 here, reticence viewed endorsing Harlan once 'in uncomfortable adhering decision—in faithful reflection cases—or treating oblique invitation (reverse decision).' Scholle Hare, 369 429, 434, 82 910, 913, 1, (1962) (dissenting opinion). 53 Equally important, stating relief—are over country far wider warrants. Such expand importantly, kinds district called declarations statutes. perceive refrain deciding Again Harlan, arose wake Baker Carr, 186, 691, 663 (1962): 'Both orderly solution ramifications bound follow (Steffel) demand come grips basic tendered case.' 913. 54 sum, major us, factual dispute, delay resolution, impose burdens litigants, widespread uncertainty judiciary. formerly known Corporation name changed Tex.Sess.Laws, 61st Leg., p. 1689, c. 547 (1969), codified Ann.Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat., 1194A (Supp.1974—1975). ex rel. Bergeron Travis 76 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 153—154, 174 S.W. 365, 367—368 (1915), Burks Stovall, 168 207, 324 S.W.2d 874, 877 (1959), concerning local pertinent 'On defendant, pleadings: '6. contendere. guilty, admission growing act based.' Tex.Code 27.02 60th 659, 17, 1738 (1967). convictions, Article new amendments significance 63d 399, 2(A), 969 system Colten Kentucky, 407 104, 112—119, 1953, 584 after 10-day period posting expired. '§ 1983. 'Every who, color regulation, custom, usage, Territory, subjects, subjected, citizen privileges, immunities secured laws, liable party injured law, redress.' noted, too, exhaustion process made. F.Supp., 265—266. injunction. chose 919, 921 1972); 456 6, 1214, dispute propriety 462, 1217: 'When intervention duplicative disruption system; intervention, circumstance, interpreted reflecting negatively ability enforce principles. addition, provides vindicate intervene place hapless Scylla intentionally flouting Charybdis believes becoming emmeshed proceeding.' couched conclusory specifically brief nevertheless focused primarily accepts generous language complaint. 428-429, 3. Respondents claim. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 8(c). did, argue waived relitigate validity frankly recognize making 'a conviction.' Brief 6. relied exhaust 62. One 'questions presented' 'seek 2. Preiser Rodriguez, 1827, 1840, 439 (1973), Courts 'res 1983' confinement judgments impeached courts. Circuits state-court judgment, ruled. Mastracchio Ricci, 498 1257 (CA1 1974), cert. denied, 909, 828, 838 (1975); Lackawanna Benevolent Balen, 446 (CA2 1971); Kauffman Moss, 1270 (CA3), 400 846, 93, 84 (1970); Shank Spruill, 756 1969); Coogan Cincinnati Bar 431 1209 (CA6 1970); Williams Liberty, 461 325 (CA7 Jenson Olson, 353 825 (CA8 1965); Scott California Supreme 300 (CA9 Metros Colorado, 441 313 (CA10 1970). Ney California, 1285, 1288 1971). final is, qualification void impeached. Restatement, Judgments (1942). void—i.e., 'without purposes hand'—depends, indication congressional intent, defect gravity asserted, powerful interest finality Schlesinger Councilman, 738, 752—753, 1300, 1310—1311, 591 (1975). analysis applies actions. Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 256 275, 2041, 2062—2072, 854 (Powell, concurring). proceedings—restraint liberty—may justify broader involuntary inadequate advice. McMann Richardson, 397 759, 90 1441, 763 (1970). Nor Blackledge Perry, 417 2098, 628 closely analogous double jeopardy bar, hailed .,' very initiation operated (petitioner) law.' 30—31, 2104. ruled, infirmity 'initiation proceedings' eventual punishment that, assertedly, exact. opportunity, claiming increased fines. anything intelligent, fines kind 'grisly' 440, Developments Law—Federal Habeas Corpus, Harv.L.Rev. 1038, 1106—1109 election fora, (1961), instead been, feared affidavit submitted 'very nervous places, night areas town numerous officers.' 53. 8, 10. references 'threats prosecution' relate averment entire community, wholly devoid citizens, including 'pleadings something ingenious academic conceivable.' SCRAP, 688, 2405, 2416, 254 although liberally, 8(f), genuinely subjective shown, open virtually desired advisory Stewart (1974): 'Our understood authorizing invocation thinks honestly entertains belief prosecuted it.' through lack enforcement, nullities. closest addressing passage: sweeping means safe carry unless telepathic assured behavior officer. provision violative of, chilling upon, Freedom Association Assembly, Speech, fundamental Movement. Section applicability gathering, non-criminal citizens terms.' 6—7. Shorn completely unsubstantiated claims, gravamen unconstitutionally vague. objection vagueness, purely ramifications, discriminatory unfairness punishing reasonably predicted criminal. Grayned Rockford, 408 108—109, 2294, 2298—2299, 222 matter, matures constituional dismiss, 'assumed true every (petitioners') assume(d) continue (petitioners) ordinance.' App., 64. discussing 'as sub judice, standing sue prosecutions.' 65 'today' years suit, strongly suggests arguing sort 'private attorneys general' behalf Dallas,' Apparently interested communication purport represent Frankfurter Longshoremen's Union Boyd, 347 222, 223, 74 447, 448, 98 650 (1954): '(A)ppellee contends 'case bring conclusive, end matter.' 504 505, 680—681, (1974) (Blackmun, part).

Category: 8