Document: 430 U.S. 327 97 S.Ct. 1211 51 L.Ed.2d 376 Joseph JUIDICE, etc., et al., Appellants,v.Harry VAIL, Jr., al. No. 75-1397. Argued Nov. 30, 1976. Decided March 22, 1977. Syllabus Following their failure to satisfy judgments against them in various civil actions New York State courts, appellees, pursuant provisions of the Judiciary Law, were held contempt by appellant justices, and except for appellees Ward Rabasco, fined imprisoned disobeying subpoenas appear supplemental proceedings brought respective judgment creditors an attempt collect judgments. Appellees subsequently a class action appellants Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking have statutory authorizing enjoined on federal constitutional grounds not raised state proceedings. By time this was filed all had paid fines released from jail, whereas Rabasco alleged that they threatened with imprisonment. The declared statute unconstitutional its enforcement. Held: 1. Only standing seek injunctive relief, since are subject pending courts. other absent any allegation or finding further proceedings, no standing, since, having been longer live controversy officials as either citations short periods incarceration would entitle relief. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 592, 95 1200, 43 482, distinguished. Pp. 331-333. 2. erred enjoining enforcement procedures. Younger Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669; supra. 333-339. (a) principles federalism comity enunciated apply case which State's process is involved. Whether disobedience court-sanctioned subpoena, resulting leading court, labeled civil, quasi-criminal, criminal, salient fact federal-court interference 'an offense interest . likely be every bit great it criminal proceeding,' Huffman, supra, at 604, 1208. Moreover, such only 'unduly interfere(s) (State's) legitimate activities,' Younger, 44, 750, but also 'can readily interpreted 'as reflecting negatively upon court's ability enforce principles." 333-336. (b) clearly opportunity present claims more required invoke abstention. Gerstein Pugh, 103, 854, 54 336-337. (c) exceptions application here, where cannot said statutes question flagrantly patently unconstitutional, there neither allegations, proof, nor findings enforcing procedures bad faith motivated desire harass. 338-339. 406 F.Supp. 951, reversed. A. Seth Greenwald, City, appellants. Jane E. Bloom, Poughkeepsie, appellees. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Appellee Harry Vail, debtor who court County Dutchess County, N.Y., thereafter sought contempts 1983 United States Southern York. state-court Vail found most respects representative those named well.1 2 defaulted credit arrangement Public Loan Co., January 1974, default $534.36 entered him City N.Y. Three months later, when remained unpaid, served subpoena requiring attend deposition so give information relevant satisfaction judgment.2 office creditor's attorney May 28, little than month after date served, stated, N.Y.Civ.Prac. Law 5223 (McKinney 1963), 'failure comply punishable court.' 3 did deposition. Nearly two scheduled date, Juidice, Court, issued order August 13 show cause why he should punished contempt.3 failed hearing. On Juidice holding imposing fine amount $250 plus costs.4 pay fine. September 23, ex parte commitment order,5 arrested jailed October He following day imposed order. 4 Shortly thereafter, ignored period nine stage whichhe defendant, became plaintiff his coplaintiffs enjoin, behalf debtors, use authorized law employed justices ground imprisonment violated Fourteenth Amendment Constitution. As never appeared obviously raise these contentions made before however, could defense ongoing proceedings.6 Had ruled contentions, appealed Appellate Division Supreme Court.7 They chose, resorting avail themselves forum afforded We must decide whether, existence available raising issues judicial proceeding, properly entertain light our decisions 669 (1971), 482 (1975). hold not. 5 * A three-judge convened response appellees' complaint later certified Fed. Rule Civ.Proc. 23(b)(2) action. defined include 'all persons been, presently contained challenged sections Law.' App. Jurisdictional Statement 18a. At same rendered granting partial summary 6 'declaring Sections 756, 757, 770, 772, 773, 774 775 face permanently operation plaintiffs members class, namely, above ..' Id., 20a. 7 Appellants Court's abstain well decision merits. noted probable jurisdiction, 426 946, 96 3164, 49 1182, we agree appellants' first contention do reach merits dispute.8 8 Although parties, obliged examine matter case-or-controversy requirement associated Art. III, relief North Carolina Rice, 404 244, 92 402, 30 413 (1971); O'Shea Littleton, 414 488, 498-498, 94 669, 675-677, 38 674 (1974). lawsuit commenced, additional added, Patrick already order, and, again excepting payment court-imposed imprisoned, 'in imminent danger being Order Contempt Complaint $55. temporary restraining effect throughout lawsuit, incarcerating similarly threat issuance has complied with. restrained Rabasco. 9 All then, citation These follow debt, differ respect Ohio involved In closed down plaintiff's movie house future. decree become final instituted action, continued. U.S., 598, S.Ct., 1205. That accordingly requisite standing. 495-496, 676. Here, once paid, orders expended itself. And, satisfies entire judgment, original functus officio. does allege, find, repeated necessary relief.9 See Ellis Dyson, 421 426, 1691, 44 274 (1975); Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 1209, 39 505 Since unlike predicated pending, merely threatened, deal contentions. 10 decided holdings mandate dismissal case, because prosecution, abatement nuisance therefore closely akin proceeding.10 This implausible reading cases, recent two, reserved applicability abstention cases generally language: 11 'Informed federalism, least three Courts Appeals applied nature. Duke Texas, 477 F.2d 244 (CA5 1973); Lynch Snepp, 472 769 (CA4 Cousins Wigoda, 463 603 (CA7 1972). For purposes us, need make general pronouncements litigation. It suffices say reasons heretofore set out, conclude tests laid determining whether proceed appellee's prayer proceeding.' U. S., 607, 1209. 12 now hold, confined solely types cases. emphasized "more vital consideration" behind doctrine nonintervention lay rather "the notion 'comity,' is, proper functions, recognition country up Union separate governments, continuance belief National Government will fare best if institutions left free perform functions ways." 601, 1206, quoting 750. 14 means novel doctrine. Ex Young, 209 123, 28 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), watershed sanctioned Constitution sword shield conduct officers, said: 15 'But cannot, course, interfere court. Taylor Taintor, 16 Wall. 366-370, 21 287-290; Harkrader Wadley, 172 148, 19 119, 399.' 162, 455.11 process, through vindicates regular system, long system itself affords pursue within it, surely important interest. Perhaps quite laws, even maintenance quasi-criminal proceeding But think sufficiently import require power lies core administration cf. Ketchum Edwards, 153 534, 539, 47 N.E. 918, 920 (1897). ios nature, 1208.12 activities Stat(e),' courts' 1208.13 17 relied (1975), justify refusal dismiss suit, spoke possibility position might 'thrown jail without actual hearing' (emphasis added). explained reason inapplicability way distinguishes this: 18 'The correctly respondents' claim barred equitable restrictions fedral intervention prosecutions, (1971). injunction directed prosecutions such, legality pretrial detention hearing, issue prosecution.' 108, n. 9, 860 9. (Emphasis added.) Here abundantly clear proceedings.14 No There support courts hearing (to recalcitrant defendant presumably force) apply. accorded fairly Gibson Berryhill, 411 564, 577, 93 1689, 1697, 36 488 (1973), opportunities mean inadequate.15 Presumptively, therefore, underlie call II 20 apply, otherwise applicable, finds harass conducted faith, "flagrantly violative express prohibitions clause, sentence paragraph, whatever manner whomever effort it'" 611, 1212. 22 wholly impossible here met second part exception. Nor exception proved evidence. While some paragraphs construed allegations creditors, comparable orders. may utilized unless Cf. Cameron Johnson, 390 619, 88 1335, 1339-1340, 182 (1968). here. 23 Law's Huffman.16 Its 24 Reversed. 25 STEVENS, concurring judgment. 26 major premise underlying equity act moving party adequate remedy law.1 Consistently duty alternative legal inadequate. Indeed, Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 2151, 32 705, unfortunate sometimes inadequate vindicate rights.2 ultimate concerns constitutionality designed discover assets delinquent debtors. If, contend, violate Due Process Clause Amendment, provide claim.3 protection participate proceeding. Even success protect harm avoid. procedures, therfore, themselves, wrong.4 hypothesis, this, inappropriate. I am less certain about possible Pullman abstention, Railroad Comm'n 312 496, 61 643, 85 971, STEWART relies. persuaded, know enough procedure actually administered form reliable validity. believe, 29 recitation demonstrates, provides notice gives beheard. denial impecunious debtor's right counsel proof indigency, necessarily precede appointment counsel, charge. not, deny due law. Accordingly, concur BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 31 dissent. My earlier dissent 613-618, 1212-1215, details my disagreement extension including take instant purpose restating repeat, strong begun carried extreme last Term's Paul Davis, 424 693, 1155, 405 (1976), furthered today, stripping meaningful content 1983. For, before: 'Even Harris can appropriate plainly improper plaintiff, grounded 1983,' 616, 1214. Congress created over century ago, expressly charged responsibility vindication rights color 'whether executive, legislative, judicial,' 240, 2161, 705 (1972) original). congressional contemplation, pendency irrelevant. very interpose between people, guardians people's 242, 2162. 'Section opened private citizens, offering uniquely incursions claimed authority secured laws Nation.' 239, 2160. statute, Act 1875, Stat. 470, granted federal-question completely altered Congress' pre-Civil War policy relying arising laws. constituted lower primary powerful reliances vindicating given Constitution, treaties States." 464, 1218, (1974) 'In thus expanding power, levels judiciary suitor's choice claims. Plainly, escape permissible solemn responsibility, equally '. guard, enforce, States.' 'We yet like believe wherever sit, human always adjudication, decline exercise jurisdiction simply asserted adjudicated forum. ." Zwickler Koota, 389 241, 248, 391, 395, 444 (1967). true notwithstanding review decisions, 'even appeal discretionary writ certiorari, (that possibility) substitute initial determination litigant entitled courts.' England Louisiana Bd. Medical Examiners, 375 411, 416, 84 461, 465, 440 (1964). 33 eject courthouse force effectively cripples scheme enacted crystal clarity adopting unbroken line decision, expose today's deliberate conscious floutings constitutionally empowered make. stands head access intended district suit regard suit. Rather furthering forced abdication context undercuts one chief values overriding rights, Congress, ordained 34 buttresses conclusion. comes 'expressly authorized' 2283 permit stay today cutting back remedies reintroduces much rigidity 2283, realizing prophecy extended 'the significance largely destroyed, section Anti-Injunction Statute Pyrrhic victory.' 1971 Term, 86 Harv.L.Rev. 50, 217-218 (1972). 35 Today's extends prosecution cases.' contrast suits collection typically involving small loans, usually terminating Further, parties purely parties. Whatever importance direct closing theaters exhibiting obscene films, strain hard Thus Huffman's 'quasi-criminal' rationale reliance 'contempt power' revealed covers goal denying pendng hear claims.* nothing plain direction, practical reduces Foster empty shell. challenge viewed unmixed blessing States. When decided, seen possing entirely different considerations prosecutions. 55, 2, (Stewart, J., concurring). Pending paradigm paramount interests. 613-614, 1212-1213 (Brennan, dissenting). remitting run counter If heard hands esources, experts, governmental sustaining validity statute. dilemma posed permit, 1012(b) 1976), require, N.Y.Exec. 71 1972), challenges statutes. choose intervene countless lawsuits implicating statutes, risk adverse effects far beyond interests particular contrast, names defendants, litigation focuses squarely own directly. 37 eviscerating come surprise. series contexts shaped doctrines justiciability, increasingly bar door litigants substantial Rizzo Goode, 423 362, 46 561 (1976); Simon Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 26, 1917, 48 450 Warth Seldin, 422 490, 2197, 45 343 keep out remitted reflected e. g., Hicks Miranda, 332, 2281, 223 hardly serves circumscribed centuries-old habeas corpus weaken drastically safeguard individuals Stone Powell, 428 3037, 1067 Francis Henderson, 425 536, 1708, 149 (1976). common name federalism. concept distorted disturbing meaning. Under banner vague, undefined notions equity, comity, embarked dangerous course condoning both isolated, systematic, violations liberties. Such bespeak concern equity. reflect nature 'Adopting trusted individual gone limit protective role judiciary. doing forgotten strengths duble source citizens. Federalism half crippled.' Brennan, Constitutions Protection Individual Rights, 90 489, 502-503 (1977). STEWART, 40 York's statutorily specified reached conclusion benefit construction statute's procedural requirements; consideration infirmities limited subpoenaed debtors originally suit; without, indeed, accusrately statewide practice, instead County.* Constitutional adjudication factual imponderables foolhardy: unclear, uncertain. 41 confronts uncertainty law, resolution until authoritatively interpret challenged. 971. obviate significantly modify questions seemingly presented, avoiding 'unnecessary friction federal-state relations, tentative premature adjudication.' Harman Forssenius, 380 528, 1177, 50. Those sacrificed nevertheless proceeded measure ambigupus Amendment. though prerequisites rejects routine established favor Younger-Huffman 'abstention' 482. departure prior clear. See, Carey Sugar, 73, 1208, 587; Harrison NAACP, 360 167, 79 1025, 1152. Both 'abstention,' serve restraint undue goals functions. significant difference result two. retain interpretation ambiguous while approach adantage altogether foreclosing still needless relations. Viewing aside definitive plaintiffs. Subsequent bringing five added. conclude, infra, 331-333, sought. §§ 5224 1963). N.Y.Jud. 757(1) 1975). 773. payable Co. reduction 756. 14, infra. 5701(a)(2) 1963); Rudd Rudd, A.D.2d 356 N.Y.S.2d 136 find reaching claim, proper, moved defendants answered complaint. several fine, satisfied example, owed, $534.36. His costs, full him, situated, ancillary, ended, conceivable prospect enjoin processes unconstitutional. based speculative conjectures proved. allege likelihood, possibility, future orders, none 499, 677-678, (1974); Linda R. S. Richard D., 410 614, 617, 1146, 1148, 536 (1973). read applying 'to distrupt state's laws.' Quinlan, 958. Neither cited premised 1793, 335, successor (now 2283). rather, Act,' Toucey Life Ins. 314 118, 135, 62 139, 145, 100 (1941), applicability, independent codification, longstanding policies inhere see 43-45, 750-751; J. Kent, Commentaries American *411-412. serves, preserve competing litigants, People rel. Munsell Oyer Terminer, 101 245, 247-249, 259, 259-261 (1886), spent concerns. aid nugatory, (1897) ('The maintaining orderly jurisprudence, forbids permitted, plea hardship injustice, real pretended, nullify nought decrees, however improvidently made, seem acted misapprehension mistake'); Gompers Bucks Stove & Range 221 418, 443, 492, 498-499, 55 797 (1911); King Barnes, 113 476, (1889). save another litigation,' propitious moment cause. issued, motion vacate 5015 Supp. 1976-1977) available, commitment, 2201 1974); Should ultimately sustained recourse, right, 1257(2). settled faced assigned indigent, re Smiley, N.Y.2d 433, 369 87, 330 N.E.2d 53 (1975) (no inherent provision compensation retained suits; 'risk loss liberty grievous forfeiture'). datum concerning presented attorneys who, instead, chose ignore filing McNair, apart request declaratory damages past stemming brief incarceraton. Appellants, aspect dismissed immunity. counts, addressed availability intimate Monroe Pape, 365 81 473, 492 (1961); 607 19, 609 21, 1210 21. precise public specifically identified sources plain. One basic jurisprudence act, particularly restrain suffer irreparable injury denied relief.' 43-44, 'Those opposed 1871 (the forerunner 1983) recognized proponents extending powr secure rights. debate predecessor innovation desirable. 'This legislative history makes evident conceived altering relationship Nation federally rights; concerned instrumentalities realized officers might, fact, antipathetic believed failings 241-242, 2161-2162. footnote quoted comment Congressman Coburn: "The mere local influence county courts; judges independence, put terror, can; sympathies nearly vicinage; jurors taken State, neighborhood; able rise prejudices passions terror easily. .' Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 460 (1871).' 241 31, 2161 31. argue noncooperating provided, incarceration, counsel. assume correct defects prevent occurred, hypothesis suffered avoid concluded. 108 54. point suggest fidelity abstain. suspect purported disclaimer '(a)s .," ante, 336 13, tongue cheek, 'save' signal formal announcement postponed. record suggests manner.

Category: 8