Source: https://openjurist.org/312/f2d/257/goss-v-state-of-illinois-g-p
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 04:02:22
Document Index: 746940439

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2283', '§ 2283', '§ 1981', '§ 2201', '§ 2283', '§ 2283']

312 F2d 257 Goss v. State of Illinois G P | OpenJurist
312 F. 2d 257 - Goss v. State of Illinois G P
312 F.2d 257
STATE OF ILLINOIS, Frank G. Sain, Sheriff of Cook County, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Attorney of Cook County, Defendants-Appellants.
Goss was again found guilty of contempt and the same penalties were imposed as in the first proceeding. On direct appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, People of State of Illinois v. Goss, 20 Ill.2d 224, 170 N.E.2d 113. Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court, Goss v. Illinois, 365 U.S. 881, 81 S.Ct. 1029, 6 L.Ed.2d 192; rehearing denied, 366 U.S. 941, 81 S.Ct. 1658, 6 L.Ed.2d 852.
By commencing this suit in the federal court after the Illinois Supreme Court had affirmed the criminal contempt conviction, and the Supreme Court of the United States had denied certiorari, plaintiff seeks to thwart the final state court judgment by relitigating, in a trial de novo, the very issues that had been litigated in the state court. If this newly discovered appellate procedure is permitted, many state criminal prosecutions will be faced with chaos and unenforceability.
Presumably, because petitioner was not in custody, he did not seek relief by habeas corpus. In Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, at page 456, 73 S.Ct. 397, at page 407, 97 L.Ed. 469, the Supreme Court stated: "* * * denial of certiorari marks final action on state criminal proceedings. In fields other than habeas corpus with its unique opportunity for repetitious litigation * * * the denial would make the issues res judicata."
We live in a jurisdiction of two sovereignties. Each has its own system of courts which operates in a common territory. Great care should be taken to avoid embarrassing conflicts. An accused should not be permitted to use the machinery of one sovereignty to obstruct his trial in the courts of the state unless the necessary operation of such machinery prevents his having a fair trial. Wilson v. Schnettler, 365 U.S. 381, 81 S.Ct. 632, 5 L.Ed.2d 620.
State judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violation of federal constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has the right to pass on any such cases decided by the highest court of a state. Also, there is the remedy of federal habeas corpus which is predicated upon the accused submitting himself to custody after having exhausted state remedies.
Federal courts have been and should be reluctant to interfere by injunction in a state court criminal proceeding. As stated by Mr. Justice Douglas in his dissent in Pugach v. Dollinger, 365 U.S. 458, at page 462, 81 S.Ct. 650, at page 652, 5 L.Ed.2d 678: "The strongest expression of that reluctance is found in the general prohibition of federal injunctions `to stay proceedings in a State court.' 28 U.S.C. § 2283."
28 U.S.C. § 2283 reads: "Stay of State court proceedings. A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."
Several decisions have pointed out that this section has not been modified nor is an exception engrafted thereon by the terms of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.) or the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.). H. J. Heinz Co. v. Owens, 9 Cir., 189 F.2d 505; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407; Smith v. Village of Lansing, 7 Cir., 241 F.2d 856; Sexton v. Barry, 6 Cir., 233 F.2d 220.
Although we have heretofore held herein that the District Court had no jurisdiction of this cause, in any event, 28 U.S.C. § 2283 would bar the assumption of jurisdiction. No act of Congress has authorized an exception to § 2283 which would cover this case. There is no judgment of a federal court to be protected. The clause "in aid of jurisdiction" has no application under the facts of this case.
Various questions upon the merits have been discussed including whether a clear and present danger to the administration of justice existed. We do not reach these questions.
Reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint herein.