Opinion ID: 716733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: pullman

Text: ABSTENTION 152 Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in refusing to abstain under Railroad Commission v. Pullman, 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). Pullman abstention allows federal courts, in rare cases, to abstain from deciding a case if a state court's resolution of a state law issue would obviate the need for the federal court to reach a federal constitutional issue. The doctrine attempts to avoid constitutional questions and promote principles of federalism. However, Pullman abstention is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it [which] can be justified ... only in exceptional circumstances. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1244, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) (quoting Allegheny County v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188-89, 79 S.Ct. 1060, 1062-63, 3 L.Ed.2d 1163 (1959)). 153 Under our jurisprudence, a district court must make three findings in order to justify the Pullman exception to the general rule that federal courts must hear cases properly brought within their jurisdiction. The Court must find (1) that uncertain issues of state law underlie the federal constitutional claims brought in the district court; (2) that the state law issues are amenable to a state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow, adjudication of the federal claim; and (3) that important state policies would be disrupted through a federal court's erroneous construction of state law. See Chez Sez III Corp. v. Township of Union, 945 F.2d 628, 631 (3d Cir.1991). If all three factors are present, the federal court must then consider whether abstention is appropriate by weighing such factors as the availability of an adequate state remedy, the length of time the litigation has been pending, and the impact of delay on the litigants. Id. at 633. 154 Abstention is not warranted here. First, although a state law issue----whether Megan's Law applies to him----underlies the federal constitutional claim, this issue is not uncertain because Megan's Law clearly applies to him. See Part VIII supra. Second, because the applicability of Megan's Law to Artway is patent, this issue is not amenable to a state law determination that would obviate the need for a federal constitutional determination. The Supreme Court has used various formulations to describe amenability, 34 but no matter which we adopt, the lack of uncertainty about the state law issue precludes satisfaction of this prong: a certain issue is not amenable to a contrary interpretation. The third factor----whether an improper interpretation of state law would disrupt important state policies----favors the state because the scope of Megan's Law is an important state issue. 35 Nevertheless, two of the three essential factors for abstention are lacking even before we come to the weighing factors; hence, Pullman abstention is inappropriate.