Opinion ID: 157370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Scope of the Colorado River Doctrine

Text: 29 In Colorado River, the Court first announced that federal courts may not use the abstention doctrines to refuse to exercise jurisdiction over a suit for non-equitable relief that duplicated ongoing state litigation. See Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 813, 816-818, 96 S.Ct. 1236. However, the Court then concluded that judicial economy concerns may justify deferral of a federal suit when pending state litigation will resolve the issues presented in the federal case. See id. at 817-20, 96 S.Ct. 1236. The justification for deferral in such an instance is not to vindicate Our Federalism, as the abstention doctrines do, Younger, 401 U.S. at 44, 91 S.Ct. 746 but rather to preserve judicial resources: 30 Although this case falls within none of the abstention categories, there are principles unrelated to considerations of proper constitutional adjudication and regard for federal-state relations which govern in situations involving the contemporaneous exercise of concurrent jurisdictions, either by federal courts or by state and federal courts. These principles rest on considerations of (w)ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation. 31 Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236 (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952)). 32 Because the Colorado River Doctrine springs from the desire for judicial economy, rather than from constitutional concerns about federal-state comity, and because the Colorado River Doctrine is an exception to our jurisdictional mandate from Congress, the Doctrine may only be used when the clearest of justifications ... warrant[s] dismissal. Id. at 819, 96 S.Ct. 1236. Thus, while Colorado River 's judicial economy goals allow a federal court to avoid the virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given [it], id. at 818, 96 S.Ct. 1236, the appropriate circumstances for deferral under the Colorado River Doctrine are considerably more limited than the circumstances appropriate for abstention and must be exceptional. Id. at 817-18, 96 S.Ct. 1236; but see Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. Forst, 4 F.3d 244, 253 n. 20 (4th Cir.1993) (Although the Supreme Court made clear that the Colorado River Doctrine was technically not a form of abstention, the distinction has been lost, and we see no reason to revive it.) (citation omitted); Chemerinsky, supra, §§ 14.2-.4 (treating Colorado River and its progeny as abstention cases). 33 Hence our task in cases such as this is not to find some substantial reason for the exercise of federal jurisdiction by the district court; rather, the task is to ascertain whether there exist exceptional circumstances, the clearest of justifications, that can suffice under Colorado River to justify the surrender of the jurisdiction. Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 25-26, 103 S.Ct. 927 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Despite the temptation for federal courts to use the Doctrine as a means of stemming the rising tide of litigation, suits in federal court are not easily swept away by Colorado River.