Opinion ID: 686479
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The State Courts Provide an Adequate Opportunity to Raise

Text: Constitutional Claims 29 Finally, Kelm argues the Ohio courts cannot provide an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional claims. Kelm alleges he can not challenge the CPO procedures because Amy Kelm withdrew her CPO. He also argues Ohio courts are inadequate because he must wait until the settlement of the divorce before challenging the validity of the Rule 75(H) restraining orders. 30 Initially, we must presume that the state courts are able to protect the interests of the federal plaintiff. Pennzoil, 481 U.S. at 1, 107 S.Ct. at 1521. In Pennzoil, the Court noted because all state court judges are bound by the United States Constitution, federal courts: 31 cannot assume that state judges will interpret ambiguities in state procedural law to bar presentation of federal claims.... Accordingly, when a litigant has not attempted to present his federal claims in related state-court proceedings, a federal court should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary. 32 Id. at 15, 107 S.Ct. at 1528. Thus, the plaintiff must prove the inadequacy of the state courts. 33 The facts in Pennzoil resemble those before us. In Pennzoil, a party sought relief pursuant to Sec. 1983 alleging Texas proceedings violated the Constitution. The party did not present these claims to the state court. The district court did not abstain and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed finding Younger abstention was appropriate. In reversing, the Court noted the significance of Texas' open court provision which provides that all courts shall be open, and remedies provided, to all injured persons. Based on Texas' open courts provision and the plaintiff's failure to attempt to secure relief in the state courts, the Court found the plaintiff did not meet its burden to prove the inadequacy of the state courts. 34 Similarly, Kelm has failed to prove the inadequacy of the Ohio courts. As was the case in Pennzoil, Ohio has an open courts provision found in Article 1, Sec. 16 of the Ohio Constitution. Here, the Ohio courts have given us no reason to question their ability or willingness to address Kelm's constitutional questions. Because the Ohio courts provide an adequate forum for Kelm's constitutional claims, the third criterion of Younger is satisfied. Thus, abstention was proper in this case.