Document: 420 U.S. 592 95 S.Ct. 1200 43 L.Ed.2d 482 Lawrence S. HUFFMAN, etc., et al., Appellants,v.PURSUE, LTD. No. 73—296. Argued Dec. 10, 1974. Decided March 18, 1975. Rehearing Denied May 12, See 421 971, 1969. Syllabus Ohio's public nuisance statute provides, inter alia, that a place exhibiting obscene films is nuisance, requires up to year's closure of any determined be and also provides for the sale personalty used in conducting nuisance. Appellant officials instituted proceeding under state court against appellee's predecessor as operator theater displaying pornographic films. Concluding defendant had displayed movies, trial rendered judgment appellants' favor ordered closed year seizure personal property its operation. Appellee, which taken over operation prior judgment, rather than appealing within system, immediately filed suit Federal District Court 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging use constituted deprivation constitutional rights color law, seeking injunctive declaratory relief. Without considering whether it should have stayed hand deference federalism principles set forth Younger v. Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669, declared unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds enjoined execution court's insofar not been adjudged adversary hearings. Held: Under circumstances, are applicable even though civil nature, applied tests laid down determining proceed merits entertained action unless appellee established early intervention was justified exceptions recognized Younger, where conducted with an intent harass or bad faith, challenged flagrantly patently unconstitutional. Pp. 603-613. (a) The component rests upon threat our federal system if judicial interference criminal proceedings were permitted, applies equally such this, more akin prosecution most cases. 603-605. (b) Apart from right might appeal this remained court, not, view comity interests seeks protect, permitted luxury litigation issues presented by ongoing proceedings. But assuming, arguendo, litigants entitled forum resolution all issues, entitlement appropriately asserted litigant when he relitigate issue adversely completed 605-607. (c) Regardless became final, standards must met justify losing has exhausted his appellate remedies before relief district court. considerations underlie permit no truncation exhaustion requirement merely because party general jurisdiction believes, did here, chances prevailing auspicious. 607-611. (d) Since rule issue, case appropriate remand so may consider irreparable injury can shown light intervening Ohio Supreme decision, so, nature assume exception policy kind. 611-613. Vacated remanded. James J. Clancey, Sun Valley, Cal., appellants. Gilbert H. Deitch, Atlanta, Ga., appellee. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 This we decide decision 669 (1971), bars based believed A similar raised Gibson Berryhill, 411 564, 93 1689, 36 488 (1973), but required there biased administrative body could provide necessary predicate dismissal, is, 'the opportunity raise timely decided competent tribunal involved.' Id., at 577, S.Ct., 1697. Similarly, Speight Slaton, 415 333, 94 1098, 39 367 (1974), noted probable applicability noncriminal cases, remanded reconsideration subsequent Georgia struck facts. Today do reach conclude circumstances here nature.1 2 * Appellants sheriff prosecuting attorney Allen County, Ohio. arises their efforts close Cinema I Theatre, Lima, management both current tenant, Pursue, Ltd., predecessor, William Dakota, specialized display fairly characterized pornographic,2 numerous instances after 3 sought invoke statute, Rev.Code Ann. 3767.01 seq. Section 3767.01(C)3 exhibits obscene4 while 3767.065 preliminary injunctions pending final determinination status nuisance,6 nuisance,7 release order satisfaction certain conditions (including showing will reestablished).8 4 Common Pleas County Dakota. During course somewhat involved legal followed, reviewed 16 movies theater. Dakota engaged conduct I, therefore closed, pursuant 3767.06 'for purpose period one sooner released Order (the) defendant-owners fulfilling requirements provided 3767.04 Revised Code Ohio.' theater's operations.9 5 succeeded Dakota's leasehold interest entry state-court judgment. Rather United States Northern complaint 1983 alleged law. It unenforceable.10 directed constitutionality three-judge convened.11 concluded vague, constitute overly broad restraint permanently temporarily prevented Cf. Near Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 697, 51 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931). Fashioning remedy match perceived defect, portion obscene.12 give indication considered find expression (1971). 6 On appeal, appellants problem, well variety statutory issues. We need only Younger. II 7 companion cases13 propriety federal-court prosecutions. novel one, relied heavily Fenner Boykin, 271 240, 46 492, 70 927 (1926), cases14 endorsed holding law enforcement process issued 'under extraordinary danger loss great immediate.' 243, 493. itself challenge California Criminal Syndicalism Act, allegedly face. In Black, observed 'it perfectly natural cases repeat time again normal thing courts asked enjoin injunctions.' U.S., 45, 751. congressional manifested permitting try cases,15 long existed strong part traditional doctrine equity stay movant adequate 'particularly act restrain prosecution.' 43, 750. went explain 'is reinforced vital consideration,' aspect described 8 notion 'comity,' proper respect functions, recognition fact entire country made Union separate governments, continuance belief National Government fare best institutions left free perform functions ways.' 44, 9 Central ours 10 Government, anxious vindicate protect interests, always endeavors ways unduly interfere legitimate activities States.' Ibid. 11 reaffirmed Boykin present Echoing Fenner, stated show 'irreparable injury' prerequisite injunction, would "great immediate." 46, suggested situations good faith without harass, 54, 755. particularly 'cost, anxiety, inconvenience having defend single prosecution' type interference. 751.16 12 noninterference modified Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 85 1116, 14 22 (1965), least attacks statutes thought facially invalid concerned. arrests threatened prosecutions employed means harassing plaintiffs. That thus narrow acknowledged "of conceivable violative express prohibitions every clause, sentence paragraph, whatever manner whomever effort apply it," situation intervention, 53—54, unequivocally held facial invalidity exceptional circumstance justifying 13 Steffel Thompson, 452, 1209, 505 pending. concluding occasion identify specifically some violate based. relevant equity, comity, 'have little force absence proceeding." 462, 1217. explained: 'When filed, does result duplicative disruption justice system; nor circumstance, interpreted reflecting negatively courts' ability enforce principles.' 15 background case. III seriousness consistently confronted requests relief, they abide go beyond those private jurisprudence. For example, Massachusetts State Grange Benton, 272 525, 47 189, 71 387 daylight savings act. Writing Court, Holmes cited supra, emphasized 'should very strictly observed,' 529, 190, 'that injunction ought officers clothed authority question, reasonably doubt prevent injury.' 527, 190. 17 Although bill executive officers, proceedings, think less weight latter setting. If anything, counsel toward restraint, since prevents effectuating substantive policies, continuing function providing objections interposed policies. Such results readily 'as 18 quite much proceeding. however, reluctance unitary prosecution. Strictly speaking, element available mandate attached factor involving parties, deal important respects proceeding, aid closely related prohibit dissemination materials. Thus, offense State's likely bit 55 n. 2, 757 (Stewart, J., concurring). Court's directly disrupted laws obtain compliance precisely embodied laws.17 IV 19 spite critical similarities between nonetheless urges difference two cause us limit difference, says appellee, whereas may, remedies, claims through habeas corpus, analogous like whose infringed cannot custodial detention other sanction. 20 course, seek review claim properly rejected courts. Moreover, sustained validity grounds, lies matter right. 28 1257(2). assured eventual consideration apart which, already explained, costly terms protect. 21 Appellee's argument, counterpart contemporaneous access claim, apparently depends unarticulated major premise who asserts federal, state, reject seeks. Even proceedings.18 understand why completion canvassed militate result. able distinct dispositions questions. turned peculiar pending; turn event eventually obtained claims. likewise controlled application same federalism. 23 Informed federalism, three Courts Appeals nature. Duke Texas, 477 F.2d 244 (CA5 1973); Lynch Snepp, 472 769 (CA4 Cousins Wigoda, 463 603 (CA7 1972). purposes us, make pronouncements litigation. suffices say reasons heretofore out, prayer V 24 Appellee contends sort, govern acted longer 'pending proceeding' term distinguish commenced incipient threatened. Here, begun point, take it, begun, ended filed.19 25 relies facts permanent ever As procedure, presumably sense being nonappealable, point filing, possibly own surely judge engage inquiry. regardless Pleas' believe concomitant posture exhaust bring himself specified 26 Virtually evils inhere just occurred trial. Intervention later stage anything highly duplicative, place, direct aspersion capabilities Nor, these state-initiated deems important. Indeed, disruptive offensive won nisi prius determination valid policies violated fashion justifies abatement. post-trial designed annual trial, deprives legitimately them, overseeing arise jurisdiction.20 importance typically system's litigant's contentions. Especially true when, involves capable narrowing. short, believ ethat accorded resolve arising substitute hold remedies.21 At 'futile.' Keating Motion Picture Film Entitled 'Vixen,' St.2d 278, N.E.2d 137 Pleas. While uphold film ran afoul definition obscenity, absolutely nothing principal contention Fourteenth Amendments blanket films, including difficulty understanding doomed failure. 29 More importantly, believes success obviously possessed viable else assiduously litigate Yet, Art. VI Constitution declares Judges shall bound' Constitution, laws, treaties. truth urging base assumption judges faithful responsibilities. refuse do. action, pre-appeal Younger.22 30 today, allow finds motivated desire "flagrantly it." noted, exceptions. sub silentio fits prohibitions," characterization possible Ewing 'Without Stitch,' 37 95, 307 911 (1974). narrowly construed avoiding difficulties concerned Court.23 31 vacated further consistent opinion. 32 ordered. 33 BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, dissenting. 34 dissent. treatment 'in statutes' first step extending generally except circumstances.1 today's plaintiff maintain exhausting procedures adverse obvious discard settled actions maintained remedies. 35 Harris basically application, context relation prosecutions, basic jurisprudence . 'The maxim summarizes centuries weighty experience Anglo-American law.' Stefanelli Minard, 342 117, 120, 72 118, 96 138 (1951). enforcing national forbidding (criminal) special circumstances.' 41, 749. id., decisions antedating invested particular significance equitable Not alone 'both immediate' 493, (1926); Spielman Motor Sales Co. Dodge, 295 89, 678, 680, 79 1322 (1935). Injury 'incidental brought lawfully faith' injunction. Douglas City Jeannette, 319 157, 164, 63 877, 881, 87 1324 (1943). 485, 1120, (1965). line culminating reflects longstanding incompatible paramount role crimes laws. Federalcourt protects sensitive source friction Nation.' 120. tradition, opposite legislation far back 1793 'seemingly uncompromising language,' Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 233, 92 2151, 2157, 705 (1972), 'may grant court' exceptions, see 2283, engrafted prohibition. Many, most, euphemism 'implied.' story appears 233 236, 2157—2159. Congress 1941 Toucey New York Life Ins. Co., 314 62 139, 86 100, forecast possibility Act enforced according literal terms, amended 1948 'to restore understood decision." 2159. Thus extension turns clock portends onece resuscitation command Anti-Injunction Act—that overrule decades heedlessly flout Congress' evident enacting amendment acquiesce 38 threatens serious prejudice potential come into existence until steps safeguard him spurious prosecution—arrest, charge, information, indictment. contrast, case, comes filing complaint, founded. To deny fiat plainiff arm (here authorities) easily wielded weapon strip enacted assure him. escape consequence characterizing statutes.' mere untoward consequences thereby train regard connection, any, be,2 plainly improper plaintiff, grounded 1983.3 serves objective Today's defeat objective. After War Between States, 'nationalism dominated political investitute judiciary enormously increased powers.' Zwickler Koota, 389 241, 246, 88 391, 394, 444 (1967). Civil Rights 1871, Stat. 13. 247, 395. Judiciary 1875, granted federal-question jurisdiction, completely altered pre-Civil relying 245—246, 393—394. These lower "the primary powerful reliances vindicating given treaties States." 464, 1218, fact, standing alone, never refusal exercise jurisdiction. 248, notwithstanding for, 'even discretionary writ certiorari (that possibility) inadequate initial courts.' England Louisiana Board Medical Examiners, 375 411, 416, 84 461, 465, 440 (1964). 40 Consistently 1871 1875 Acts Monroe Pape, 365 167, 183, 81 473, 482, 492 (1961), suing supplementary remedy, refused invoked.' today require drastically undercuts Pape progeny—the forces 41 excepted anti-injunction undercut history extended 'federal power attempt failure secure rights.' 2161. prompted comment 'much rigidity section 2283 reintroduced, largely destroyed, Statute Pyrrhic victory.'4 fulfills gloomy prophecy. dissent mertis. DOUGLAS, joining wishes clear adheres expressed 58—65, 760—764, (1971) (dissenting opinion), abstention inconsistent demands overriding (such Amendment) about sacrificed. Other recent raising include Sosna Iowa, 419 393, 553, 532 (1975). Mitchum, proceedings; denied solely basis 15, infra. Our way questioning qualifying federalism' 2162. parties address 911, 1405, 465 concern reached Sosna's ruling network. Because urged merits, Sosna, 396—397, 3, 556. Miller California, 413 18—19, 2607, 2612, discusses distinction 'pornography' 'obscenity.' '§ Definitions. 'As sections relating nuisances: '(C) 'Nuisance' defined lewdness, assignation, prostitution conducted, continued, exists, lewd, indecent, lascivious, plate negatives, positives, projected screen exhibition, glass slides either negative positive form exhibition projection screen, photographed, manufactured, developed, screened, exhibited, otherwise prepared shown, contents maintaining purpose. chapter affect newspaper, magazine, publication entered second class post-office department.' obscenity contained statutes, 2905.34 (Supp.1972), now 2907.01 Keating, 905, 3033, 1016 following statute's comported Miller's standards. 215, 301 880 (1973). Content order. 'If admitted 3767.11, inclusive, Code, abatement removal thereof belong defendants notified appearing, chattels execution. renewal bond furnished owner real property, or, continue closing granting temporary then issued, directing effectual purpose, keeping released. appear Code. lien, penalty, liability subject. Owners unsold seized ten days prove innocence, knowledge said reasonable care diligence known thereof. Every presumed reputation place. innocence established, owner, sold section. removing selling contents, officer charge receive fees levying execution; sum allowed court.' 5. referenced provides: restrained petition hearing and, payment costs incurred sureties approved clerk full value ascertained vacation, judge, conditioned abate kept satisfied that, diligence, thereof, deliver both, respective owners discharge refrain issuing restraining property. section, subjected.' Huffman CIV 0326 (Ct.Com.Pleas, Ohio, Nov. 30, primarily Pursue succeeded, statute. conceded oral argument appealed system. Pending convening Pleas, hearing. day C 72—432 (ND Apr. 20, 1973). Samuels Mackell, 66, 764, 688 (1971); Boyle Landry, 77, 758, 696 Perez Ledesma, 82, 674, 701 Dyson Stein, 200, 769, 781 Byrne Karalexis, 216, 777, 792 See, e.g., (1935); Beal Missouri P.R. 312 61 418, 577 (1941); Watson Buck, 313 387, 962, 1416 Williams Miller, 317 599, 258, 489 (1942); Title 'A expressly authorized Congress, effectuate judgments.' exception. attitude control today. governing shaped prayers nominally 'civil' resolving problems. MTM, Inc. Baxley, F.Supp. 1182 (N.D.Ala.1973), 975, 1559, 870 (1974); Palaio McAuliffe, 466 1230 intend suggest disposition rules res judicata estoppel operate bar relitigation §§ Preiser Rodriguez, 475, 497, 1827, 1840, 439 disposing contentions confronting briefed argued ordinarily difficult duration Younger's restrictions implications However, plead them here. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 8(c); retain undisturbed despite erroneous 484—485, stated: '(T)he possiblity usually amount orderly proceedings.' By requiring applying undermine (1961). There redress initiate causes action. 482. problem presently initiated afford Bank Farmers' Trust Schnader, 291 24, 54 259, 78 628 (1934), Bacon Rutland R. 232 134, 283, 58 538 (1914), challenging Those initiated. option know remains now. event, avoid simply failing comply perfecting Stitch' provisions obscene. adjudged. narrowing specifies order: pay cost file demonstrate re-established. clarification: contend, exhibited during one-year impossible, practical matter, ..' St.2d, 105, N.E.2d, 918. reaches although Yet implies jurisdictional waive Ante, 595 1. respond it. Abstention authoritative ambiguities sufficiently significantly modify questions another matter. avoidance premature adjudication. dismissed contrary, reserve submit Accordingly, retention dismissal correct practice. Lake Carriers' Assn. MacMulllan, 406 498, 512—513, 1749, 1758, 257 (1972). 'Every person who, ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, Territory, subjects, subjected, citizen rights, privileges, immunities secured liable injured redress.' Note, 1971 Term, Harv.L.Rev. 50, 217 218

Category: 8