Opinion ID: 2976467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: district court’s application of younger

Text: Michel appeals the district court’s decision to refrain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger abstention doctrine. Under this doctrine, we generally refrain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings, except under very limited circumstances. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43; Coles v. Granville, 448 F.3d 853, 865 (6th Cir. 2006) (“When a person is the target of an ongoing state action involving important state interests, a party cannot interfere with the pending state action by maintaining a parallel federal action involving claims that could have been raised in the state case.”). After having reviewed the issues, the record, and oral argument of the parties, we find the district court correctly decided to abstain under Younger for the reasons articulated in its opinion of May 7, 2007. Accordingly, we adopt the district court’s reasoning to the extent that it determined abstention under Younger was proper. III. DISTRICT COURT’S DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Michel argues the district court should have held his claims in abeyance rather than dismissing them without prejudice. We review a district court’s decision to dismiss a case without prejudice after a decision to abstain under Younger for an abuse of discretion. Coles, 448 F.3d at 865. “[T]he appropriate procedure, when abstaining under Younger, is to stay the proceedings -3- rather than to dismiss the case without prejudice.” Brindley v. McCullen, 61 F.3d 507, 509 (6th Cir. 1995). “Issuing a stay avoids the costs of refiling, allows the plaintiffs to retain their place on the court docket, and avoids placing plaintiffs in a sometimes difficult position of refiling their case before the statute of limitations expires.” Id. In this case, the statute of limitations on Michel’s Fourth Amendment claims began to run from the search on November 23, 2004. See Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan, 182 F.3d 391, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (“Typically the statute of limitations for filing an action alleging an unconstitutional search and seizure begins to run at the time of the injury. . . .”). Dismissing Michel’s claims puts his claims at jeopardy of being time-barred upon resolution of the state criminal proceedings. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in failing to issue a stay. See Adrian Energy Assocs. v. Mich. Pub. Serv. Com’n, 481 F.3d 414, 425 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n the interests of caution, we are constrained to remand the case to the district court with instructions to stay rather than dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint until the state proceedings conclude.”)