Court Opinion

ID: 9463135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:58:51.139758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:56.731597
License: Public Domain

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in dismissal of this action as to the two state judge defendants.
The state court restraining order under attack in this case, however, appears to me to represent an ex parte prior restraint on First Amendment rights.1 Under Carroll v. Commissioners of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 89 S.Ct. 347, 21 L.Ed.2d 325 (1968) and Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972), the complaint states a § 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970)) cause of action over which the District Court has jurisdiction and where abstention and “equitable restraint” are inappropriate.
I would vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand for hearing, at which appellee’s suggestion of mootness should first be determined.

. See Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940).