Legal Document

484 U.S. 193 108 S.Ct. 523 98 L.Ed.2d 529 Dean DEAKINS, et al., Petitioners,v.William MONAGHAN al. No. 86-890. Argued Oct. 14, 1987. Decided Jan. 12, 1988. Syllabus Upon application for a warrant to search one of the corporate respondents' premises evidence theft and other crimes that were subject an ongoing state grand jury investigation, state-court judge issued authorizing petitioner law enforcement officers seize documents. Alleging petitioners' execution violated various their federal constitutional rights engendered certain pendent state-law claims, respondent business entities owners filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Federal District Court seeking equitable relief, including return all documents seized, compensatory punitive damages, attorney's fees. The court granted motion dismiss on abstention grounds, but Appeals reversed remanded, ruling Younger v. Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669, its progeny did not require abstain from adjudicating claims. As claims money damages fees, applied Circuit's rule that, even when abstaining entirely adjudication is required stay rather than are cognizable forum. Subsequently, returned indictment against three respondents, trial which was assigned took jurisdiction over seized Respondents represent here they wish withdraw such complaint seek injunctive relief exclusively proceedings. Held: 1. In light aforesaid representation this Court, there no longer live controversy between parties whether can hear issue moot regard. Accordingly, portion Appeals' judgment addressing those vacated, case remanded with instructions prejudice. This disposition will prevent regeneration by reassertion right litigate arising out events surrounding warrant's execution. Pp. 199-201. 2. Even if doctrine here, had discretion monetary cannot be redressed proceeding. Circuit requiring circumstances sound since it allows parallel proceeding go forward without interference sibling, while enforcing courts' duty exercise jurisdiction. Petitioners' assertion presents extraordinary sufficient justify abdication unpersuasive. First, speculation allowed retain jurisdiction, would "hover" intrusively about based groundless assumption hold up end comity bargain. Second, Pennhurst State School Hospital Halderman, 465 89, 104 900, 79 67, as petitioners contend, dismissal substantial Court's retention Third, piecemeal litigation, inevitable federal-court involvement criminal provide only relief. 201-204. 798 F.2d 632 (CA3 1986), affirmed part, vacated remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, MARSHALL, STEVENS, SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, concurring opinion, O'CONNOR, Larry R. Erzweiler, petitioners. Edward N. Fitzpatrick, Newark, N.J., respondents. Justice BLACKMUN Court. 1 questions concerning court's obligation investigation. We certiorari, 479 1063, 107 946, 93 996 (1987), consider 669 (1971), and, so, dismiss, stay, additional Because we have concluded first now moot, vacate remand directions affirm, however, remaining reversing 2 * William Monaghan, Theodore DeSantis, John James construction together. They jointly own respondents Foundations & Structures, Inc. (F S), MJD Construction Company, Inc., New Jersey corporations, E. Monaghan Associates, general partnership. On October 4, 1984, Albert G. Palentchar, investigator Jersey, Honorable Samuel T. Lenox, Jr., "assignment judge" Superior Mercer County supervisory authority jury, Tuckahoe, F theft, bribery, records tampering, activities Judge Lenox found probable cause seizure documents, contracts, minutes, site logs, invoices, correspondence, memoranda, deeds, canceled checks, bank statements. validity has been contested. 3 following morning, Palentchar eight officers, executed warrant. lasted approximately hours. complaint, allege addition seizing hundreds barricaded sole exit premises, searched departing vehicles, recorded serial numbers machinery, detained room persons at time until produced identification, threatened tear apart homes discovered, engaged number unlawful activities. See Complaint 84-5369 (DNJ), pp. 7-9, 10. gave rise litigation before us. 4 Respondents' attorneys arrived progress challenged adequacy inventory procedure. To resolve dispute, counsel Deakins telephoned who ordered materials sealed pending his assessment Ten days later, 15, Jersey's Deputy Attorney General Julian Wilsey invited examine seal copy whatever needed order continue conduct business. also informed prepared any discovered exceeded scope course examination, identified numerous contended either outside or protected attorney-client attorney-work-product privilege. disagreed, disputed resealed Lenox's original sealing order. 5 December 27, still seal, instituted civil action United States Jersey. sought well, alleged violations Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments, asserted trespass, conversion, confinement, intentional reckless infliction emotional distress. Prior filing answer, moved arguing existence investigation disputes countered preliminary injunction directing 6 While taking place court, State's behest, entered ex parte show why he should lift make available officials conducting Three scheduled hearing cause, temporary restraining staying discovery disposed motions it. Several months August 6, 1985, grounds denied injunction. App. Pet. Cert. 5a. 7 appeal, Third denial dismissing complaint. (1986). A divided panel ruled pronounced unanimous, Relying precedent, held district forum companion being adjudicated. F.2d, 635-636, citing Crane Fauver, 762 325, 328-329 1985); Williams Red Bank Bd. Ed., 662 1008, 1022-1024 1981). noted availability separate could brought nothing lessen properly 635-636. further 8 After rendered judgment, S—and others present action.1 None ever submitted indicting contested returned. Law Division, Cumberland County, trial, Memorandum Suggesting Cause Moot 3. violation privilege return. Tr. Oral Arg. 22-23. Still seized. id., 23. these developments, six represent, through common counsel, do pursue court. Id., 22-25. proceedings initiated indictment. resolution 22, 25; 4. II 9 Article III Constitution limits courts actual, controversies litigants. Preiser Newkirk, 422 395, 401, 95 2330, 2334, 45 272 (1975); SEC Medical Committee Human Rights, 404 403, 407, 92 577, 579-580, 30 560 (1972). It enough existed filed, continued exist review obtained Appeals. Sosna Iowa, 419 393, 402, 553, 558, 559, 532 Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 459, n. 10, 94 1209, 1216, 39 505 (1974). us, court.2 question certiorari moot.3 10 Petitioners, object promise amend empty one, because particularly indicted, nullifying amendment new dissatisfied Petitioners express concern raise some proceeding, thus preserving option pursuing If progress, argue, bound decision refuse abstain. prevail question, then appeal very already decided them ultimately petition successfully again certiorari. then, suggest, use same ploy once more deprive According petitioners, potential manipulation renders "capable repetition, yet evading review," therefore shield conclusion mootness. Murphy Hunt, 455 478, 482, 102 1181, 1183-1184, 71 353 (1982). 11 misconceive effect representations our reliance thereon shape litigation. When claim awaiting below relevant Munsingwear, 340 36, 39-40, 104, 106-107, L.Ed. 36 (1950). strips binding effect. And prevented reviving dismissal. part willingness permanently action, prejudice indicated. court.4 upon oral argument continuing interest dismissed barred warrant.5 12 Our does consideration propriety University Texas Camenisch, 451 390, 101 1830, 1832-1833, 68 175 (1981); Powell McCormack, 395 486, 495-500, 89 1944, 1950-1953, 23 491 (1969). press state, 13 argue doctrine—which requires where plaintiff's adjudicated judicial proceeding—applies complaints within fees required. need decide extent applies proceeding.6 14 635, 325 (1985), 1008 (1981). sound. "to assume exists."7 1024. repeatedly stated "virtually unflagging obligation" except " 'where repair clearly serve important countervailing interest.' Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. States, 424 800, 813, 817, 96 1236, 1244, 1246, 47 483 (1976), quoting Allegheny Frank Mashuda Co., 360 185, 188-189, 1060, 1062-1063, 1163 (1959); see Moses H. Cone Memorial Mercury Corp., 460 1, 14-15, 103 927, 936-937, 74 765 (1983). 15 unpersuaded suggestion circumstances. ready whenever things unsatisfactorily, groundless. seem bargain inappropriate converse trusted enforce adequate diligence. Stone Powell, 428 465, 493-494, 35, 3037, 3052, 49 1067 (1976). 16 contention 67 (1984), prevents federal. suggest predominate minimal additions Saying applicability Penn- hurst particular note sizable intended compensate injuries allegedly sustained rights. There recommences free Pennhurst. 17 Finally, allowing dispute parties. But blamed fragmentary nature necessarily separate. Indeed, invite initiation action. Brief 32. Piecemeal issues involved inevitable. 18 sum, none cited constitutes kind circumstance may . given" courts. U.S., 1246. IV 19 affirm 20 so ordered. 21 whom O'CONNOR joins, concurring. 22 Respondents, targets suit, alleging, inter alia, subpoenas. well property. both reversed. held, first, erred phase case, least remedy 632, 635 1986). calls Younger. 636-638. questions. (1987). I agree Younger's judgments must insofar dealt question. concur Ante, 200—201. worth noting, reason give withdrawing created surprising injunction: withdrawn request conceded indictments mooted claim, likely intervening indictments. 24 mooting leaves correct claim. was. permit surely notions comity. Moreover, might foreclose, statute limitations subsequent pursuit event holds place. No doubt Courts actions stays, dismissals, applies.1 25 My difficulty approving adequately explain proceed adjudicate, damages. all, cites adjudicate absent circumstances, recognized Why, asserting rights? Why "unflagging claim? 26 sanctioning recites stayed dismissed. 202 203, 1985), 1981).2 rule, endorses, appears rest "prudential considerations" view (or "quasi-criminal") underway. See, e.g., supra, 329. never cases involving issue, hand allow first. ordering basis consideration," difficult find: requires, forward. times declined actions. E.g., Tower Glover, 467 914, 923, 2820, 2826, 81 758 (1984); Juidice Vail, 430 327, 339, (1977). absence direction plurality Circuits apply doctrine—in fashion—to like respondents.'3 28 reasons approach obvious. itself recognized, long interfere pre-empt 43-44, 53-54, S.Ct., 750-751, 754-755. several determine, example, contrary Fourth Amendment, interrogation conducted Sixth Fifth Amendment somehow violated. fact, claims—and many more—are pressed remands today merits presumably owed res judicata forthcoming "[T]he federal-state friction obvious." Guerro Mulhearn, 498 1249, 1253 (CA1 1974).4 29 entertain declaratory aimed Samuels Mackell, 66, 72-73, 764, 767-768, 688 (1971). true Samuels, "the practical two forms [here, injunctions] virtually identical, basic policy prosecutions frustrated much [or, believe, award] injunction." 73, 768. Under prosecution ongoing, declaration used Amendment. Yet unconstitutional plaintiff determination unconstitutionality seizure—a prerequisite award. latter considered less problematic purposes "Our Federalism" escapes me. anything, thought just opposite true. developments decisions clear either. Consequently, couple holding pursuant Younger, lower proceedings.5 fact reflected record briefs, memoranda mootness, argument, 18; 17; 3; Opposition Suggestion 2; 6-7 22. 24-25. rejected mootness argument. 482 912, 3181, 670 Representations response inquiries persuaded us presented. ability renewing after distinguishes defendant attempts avoid appellate voluntarily ceasing losing reinitiate "[m]ere voluntary cessation illegal case; did, compelled leave '[t]he old ways.' Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn, 393 199, 361, 364, 344 (1968), W.T. Grant 345 629, 73 894, 897, 97 1303 (1953). "conduct" fear resumed Once prejudice, parties, events. threat mere "speculative contingenc[y]," Hall Beals, 396 45, 49, 90 200, 202, 214 (1969), assert agents said "sufficiently real immediate existing controversy." O'Shea Littleton, 414 488, 496, 676, 38 674 This, course, say repeated. 40, 107, (1950), vacation become "clears path future relitigation parties," rekindle controversy. WHITE urges reach question—not stage below, grant certiorari—whether Apparently, finds appropriate conclude although analyze separately. represented remand, awkwardly presented review. 329, 1024, 16, unless retained during pendency running applicable limitations. McCurry Allen, 606 795, 799 (CA8 1979), rev'd 449 90, 411, 66 308 (1980); Doby Strength, 1405, 1406 (CA11 1985). assurance abeyance 201 202. distinct difference, weight assurance, accords made equitable-relief With respect latter, disclaimer resulted moot. dismissal, effectively reversal position However, bars changing views Such altered posture come good- bad-faith change heart, lead Unfortunately, discussed above, address accommodate renewed request. Landrigan Warwick, 628 736, 743 1980); 799; Mann Jett, 781 1448, 1449 (CA9 1986); Parkhurst State, 641 775, 777 (CA10 1981); 1406. Some taken ambiguous position, akin supra. Suggs Brannon, 804 274, 279 (CA4 Giulini Blessing, 654 189, (CA2 Singleton York City, 190 1980). By contrast, Thomas Examiners, 807 453, 457 (CA5 1987); Carras Williams, 1286, 1291-1292 (CA6 point "flexible," 1292. Appeals, considering considerations able enjoin militate award similarly situated plaintiff. 1449; Wyoming, 777; 1251-1252. not. ante, 198, prudent, claims—virtually indistinguishable substance respondents—as well.

Classification Label: 8