Opinion ID: 398861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of the Doctrine of Wise Judicial Administration

Text: 28 Without much discussion, and purporting to follow the Supreme Court's Akin decision, the district court dismissed the federal action in light of considerations of federal judicial restraint in State matters and judicial administration, further giving regard to the conservation of judicial resources and the comprehensive disposition of litigation. 487 F.Supp. at 784. 29 The Supreme Court in Akin held that the state and federal courts had concurrent jurisdiction over controversies involving federal rights to the use of water and that the district court's dismissal of the federal action was improper under the doctrine of abstention. The Court, nevertheless, held the dismissal proper under the doctrine of wise judicial administration. 30 The Court stated that the circumstances permitting a dismissal for reasons of wise judicial administration are considerably more limited than the circumstances appropriate for abstention, 424 U.S. at 818, 96 S.Ct. at 1246, and the Court referred to the necessary circumstances as exceptional. The factors that the Supreme Court stated could be considered include which court first assumed jurisdiction over the property, the inconvenience of the federal forum, the avoidance of piecemeal litigation and the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forum. The Court stated: 31 No one factor is necessarily determinative; a carefully considered judgment taking into account both the obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counselling against that exercise is required. Only the clearest of justifications will warrant dismissal. 32 The Court found the dismissal to be proper, considering such factors as (1) the state's established single continuous proceeding for water rights adjudication which antedated the district court suit, (2) the apparent absence of any proceedings in the district court, other than the filing of the complaint, prior to the motion to dismiss, (3) the extensive involvement of state water rights occasioned by this suit naming 1,000 defendants, (4) the 300-mile distance between the district court in Denver and the court in Division 7, and (5) the existing participation by the Government in Divisions 4, 5, and 6 proceedings. 33 The Court in Akin refers to wise judicial administration as being proper only under exceptional circumstances. The Court specifically did not decide whether dismissal would be warranted if more extensive proceedings had occurred in the district court prior to dismissal, if the involvement of state water rights were less extensive or if the state proceeding were in some respect inadequate to resolve the federal claims. 424 U.S. at 820, 96 S.Ct. at 1248. The Court also specifically left open the question of the application of the wise judicial administration doctrine to a water rights suit brought by a private party such as an Indian tribe rather than the United States. 424 U.S. at 801 n.26, 96 S.Ct. at 1248. 34 Our holding on the disclaimer issue makes it unnecessary for us to decide at this time whether dismissal under the doctrine of wise judicial administration would have been proper if Arizona had not disclaimed jurisdiction over the Indians. We note that the district judge did not make findings on this issue and the record indicates significant differences between these cases and the Akin case.