Opinion ID: 511751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of the Claim for Monetary Relief

Text: 17 Ballard finally argues that even if Younger abstention is proper, the federal district court erred in dismissing his claim for money damages. Just last term in Deakins v. Monaghan, the Supreme Court held that even when Younger abstention is required, a federal district court has no discretion to dismiss cognizable claims for monetary relief which cannot be redressed in a pending state proceeding. --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 523, 529 (1988). Because Ballard's claim for money damages and attorney's fees will not be addressed in the pending criminal proceedings, we must reverse and remand the district court's dismissal of Ballard's claim for monetary relief for further consideration in light of the Deakins holding. 18 In Deakins, the Supreme Court required the district court to retain jurisdiction but to stay the claim for monetary relief pending the outcome of parallel state proceedings. The Court noted that [t]here can be no question that the respondents have alleged injuries under federal law sufficient to justify the District Court's retention of jurisdiction. 108 S.Ct. at 530. In remanding Ballard's money damages claim to the district court for further consideration, we offer no opinion as to whether Ballard's complaint states a damage claim under Sec. 1983 sufficient to justify the retention of jurisdiction.