Source: https://healthlaw.org/resource/fact-sheet-abstention/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:46:09+00:00

Document:
Some courts have held that Younger should only be invoked when proceedings are ?coercive? (not initiated by potential plaintiffs but in which they must participate) and not ?remedial? (voluntarily initiated by a plaintiff to redress a wrong by the state).9 This concept was recognized in the Supreme Court?s decision in Ohio Civil Rights Comm?n v. Dayton Christian Schools.10 In that case, a state civil rights commission initiated an administrative proceeding against a private school, which then filed an action in federal court under § 1983, alleging that the proceedings would violate the First Amendment.11 The Supreme Court held that abstention was appropriate. It also held that its decision was consistent with Patsy v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, which holds that a plaintiff are not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a claim under §1983.12 Unlike the situation in Patsy, the Court noted that administrative proceedings were well underway before the federal action, an important state interest was involved, and the proceedings were ?coercive? and not ?remedial.?13 As a recent Tenth Circuit decision illustrates and as discussed below, the distinction between coercive and remedial proceedings can be unclear.
Burford abstention is intended to prevent federal courts from bypassing a state administrative process and resolving issues of state law and policy that should properly be determined by a state administrative body.
Thus, while Younger abstention may compel a federal court from hearing a Medicaid claim while there is an ongoing state administrative hearing, even after a final state court decision is rendered, Rooker-Feldman can bar a federal district court from hearing a claim that amounts to a review of that particular decision.
1 Produced by the National Health Law Program with a grant from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, NC IOLTA, and the Training Advocacy Support Center (TASC), which is sponsored by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, the Center for Mental Health Services, the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Social Security Administration, and the HealthResources Services Administration. TASC is a division of the National Disabilities Rights Network (NDRN).
4 Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 705 (1992).
6 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Ohio Civil Rights Comm?n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619 (1986).
9 See, e.g., Kercado-Melendez v. Aponte-Roque, 829 F.2d 255 (1st Cir. 1987).
10 477 U.S. 619 (1986).
12 457 U.S. 496 (1982); see also Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961).
13 477 U.S. at 627, n. 2.
14 New Orleans Pub. Serv. Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 361 (1989). See also Burford v. Sun Oil, 319 U.S. 315 (1943).
15 Arkansas Medical Soc., Inc. v. Reynolds, 6 F.3d 519, 528-29 (8th Cir. 1993); see also New Orleans Pub. Serv. Inc. s, 491 U.S. at 361; New Orleans Pub. Serv. Inc., 491 U.S. at 361.
16 491 U.S. at 362.
17 Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800, 818-20 (1976).
882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir. 1989).
19 Colo. River at 818-19.
20 Id.; Moses S. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 16 (1983).
22 See, e.g., Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Federal review of state court decisions is only available when a state supreme court renders a final judgment that implicates a conflict with federal law and a petition for a writ of certiorari is filed with the Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476.
23 See, e.g., Charchenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 1995).
24 Verizon Md., Inc. v. Public Servs. Comm?n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 644 n.3 (2002). See also Sanders v. Kan. Dep?t of Rehab Services, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2004) (noting in a Medicaid case that the Rooker-Feldman does not apply to administrative proceedings).
26 See, e.g., Providence Pediatric Medical Daycare, Inc. v. Alaigh, 799 F.Supp.2d 364 (D.N.J. 2011) (noting courts should employ Pullman rarely).

References: v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 §1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1257
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.