Case Name: Burke JUSTICE, Jr., et al., Appellants v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1984-04-20
Citations: 235 U.S. App. D.C. 347
Docket Number: No. 80-2580
Parties: Burke JUSTICE, Jr., et al., Appellants v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.
Judges: Before ROBINSON, Chief Judge, MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge, and NICHOLS, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Volume: 235
Pages: 347–352

Head Matter:
732 F.2d 949
Burke JUSTICE, Jr., et al., Appellants v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.
No. 80-2580.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 27, 1981.
Decided April 20, 1984.
Joy Marie Leong, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants. Margaret F. Ewing, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellants.
David P. Sutton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., with whom Judith W. Rogers, Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C. (at the time the brief was filed) and Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before ROBINSON, Chief Judge, MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge, and NICHOLS, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 291(a).

Opinion:
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge MacKINNON.
Dissenting opinion filed by Chief Judge ROBINSON.
MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge:
Appellants brought this action in federal district court against the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and two of its judges. Appellants allege that the conservatorship statute of the District of Columbia is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The district court dismissed their complaint.
While appellants have been before the Superior Courts for the District of Columbia for a number of years, they have not pursued an appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which thus has never had an opportunity to rule upon appellants' claims. In my opinion, those claims must be presented to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals before a federal district court can process this cause of action.
This case falls squarely within the scope of the Pullman abstention doctrine. See Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). So long as the as-yet-unconstrued conservatorship statute is susceptible of a saving construction, the district court should abstain from entertaining appellants' constitutional claims. See Boehning v. Indiana Employees Association, 423 U.S. 6, 96 S.Ct. 168, 46 L.Ed.2d 148 (1975) (per curiam); Kasap v. Moritz, 613 F.2d 138 (6th Cir.1980). Accordingly, the decision of the district court is reversed and the court is instructed on remand to hold the matter in abeyance pending its resolution by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., supra, 312 U.S. at 498, 61 S.Ct. at 644.
Judgment accordingly.