Opinion ID: 1288355
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges

Text: A plaintiff must have `an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges' in order to satisfy the third prong of the Younger abstention test. Squire, 469 F.3d at 556 (quoting Berger, 983 F.2d at 723). Abstention is appropriate `unless state law clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional claims.' Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Fieger, 74 F.3d at 745). The burden is on American Family to show that state law barred presentation of its constitutional claims. Id. In Squire, the plaintiff argued that she was denied the opportunity to raise her due process challenge at the precomplaint stage of the state proceedings because she was not provided with the names of all persons contacted in the course of the investigation against her. See id. We found the plaintiff's argument unavailing because it conflicted with Middlesex, since the plaintiff failed to raise her constitutional claim in the state disciplinary proceedings, but, instead, took her claim directly to federal district court. See id. at 557. Even though there was no specific procedure in place under the Ohio Bar Rules for bringing a constitutional challenge at the precomplaint stage of the grievance process, we found dispositive that the plaintiff had failed to show that the Disciplinary Counsel would not have considered her constitutional challenge had it been brought. Id. American Family faces two obstacles in overcoming Younger's third prong. First, it never raised its constitutional claims in its brief in opposition to the CBA's motion for a cease and desist order. Although American Family contends this is without consequence as the claims were eventually raised in its Motion to Clarify, filed after the Ohio Supreme Court granted the Interim Order, we have considered arguments raised for the first time in similar motions deemed waived. See Am. Meat Inst. v. Pridgeon, 724 F.2d 45, 47 (6th Cir.1984) (holding that defendants waived issue where it was raised for first time in motion for reconsideration after injunction had already been issued); see also Jones v. Unibilt Indus., Inc., 2004 WL 2538824, 2004-Ohio-5983 (Ct.App. 2004) (not reported in N.E.2d) (arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration deemed waived). Because American Family did not properly raise its due process claim in the state proceedings, it cannot show that it was not afforded an adequate opportunity to raise its constitutional claims. See Squire, 469 F.3d at 557; see also Berger, 983 F.2d at 723 (holding that Younger abstention was appropriate because the plaintiffs had the opportunity to present their constitutional claims in their answer to the [disciplinary] complaint against them). Second, as we explained in Fieger, federal courts should refrain from enjoining lawyer disciplinary proceedings initiated by state ethics committees if the proceedings are within the appellate jurisdiction of the appropriate State Supreme Court. 74 F.3d at 78 (quoting Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Schs., 477 U.S. 619, 627, 106 S.Ct. 2718, 91 L.Ed.2d 512 (1986)). UPL 02-10 and UPL 05-02 are currently pending before the UPL Board. The final report of the UPL Board is subject to review by the Ohio Supreme Court. See Gov. Bar. R. VII, § 19(a). Nothing in Gov. Bar R. VII prohibits a party from raising constitutional claims during the Ohio Supreme Court's review of the UPL Board's final report. Absent evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to presume that the Ohio Supreme Court would not entertain American Family's due process claim during its review of the UPL Board's findings. See Squire, 469 F.3d at 557 (An absence of explicit procedures however, does not establish that [the plaintiff] had an inadequate opportunity to raise her [constitutional] claim.); Fieger, 74 F.3d at 749 (We are confident that the Michigan Supreme Court takes constitutional challenges to its regulations very seriously.). Thus, the third prong of Younger is met.