Court Opinion

ID: 2964392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:59.402202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:55.174309
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 10, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1629

                                   TROY E. BROOKS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                         NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Philip T. Cobbin on brief for appellant.
            ________________
            Jeffrey  R. Howard, Attorney General, and Stephen J. Judge, Senior
                                                      ________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Plaintiff-appellant Troy  E. Brooks appeals
                 __________

            from  the district court's  dismissal of his  case based upon

            the abstention  doctrine of  Younger v.  Harris, 401  U.S. 37
                                         _______     ______

            (1971).  We summarily affirm.

                 I. Mootness
                    ________

                 Subsequent  to the  district court's  dismissal of  this

            case, the  New Hampshire  Supreme Court issued  its published

            opinion in Petition of  Troy E. Brooks, 140 N.H.  813 (1996).
                       ___________________________

            The  state court held  that "[t]he confidentiality provisions

            of  prior  Supreme  Court Rule  37(17)(a)  and  (g) were  not

            sufficiently  narrowly  tailored  to  meet  compelling  State

            interests  and   accordingly  have  failed   first  amendment

            scrutiny."    The  court  also noted  that  Brooks'  relevant

            alleged conduct "would  not run  afoul of the  rules as  they

            have  been amended," and declared  that it would  not use its

            contempt powers against Brooks pursuant to  the pre-amendment

            Rule 37(17)(g).

                 In light  of this decision, we find that Brooks' federal

            claims  for equitable relief are moot.  "Under Article III of

            the Constitution, federal courts  may adjudicate only actual,

            ongoing  cases  or  controversies.  .  .  .    This  case-or-

            controversy   requirement  subsists  through  all  stages  of

            federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate."  Lewis v.
                                                                 _____

            Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990).  This court
            ______________________

            may address  mootness although  neither party has  raised it.

                                         -2-

            See  13A  Charles A.  Wright, Arthur  R.  Miller &  Edward H.
            ___

            Cooper, Federal  Practice &  Procedure,   3533.1,  pp. 226-27
                    ______________________________

            (1984 &  1996 Supp.).   "Where declaratory relief  is sought,

            plaintiff must  show that there is  a substantial controversy

            over  present rights  of 'sufficient  immediacy  and reality'

            requiring adjudication."  Boston Teachers Union, Local  66 v.
                                      ________________________________

            Edgar, 787 F.2d 12, 15-16 (1st Cir. 1986).
            _____

                 The live controversy  between Brooks and the  defendants

            ended  when  the  New  Hampshire  Supreme  Court  issued  its

            published opinion declaring that the challenged provisions of

            Rule  37(17) violated the First Amendment and stating that it

            would not use its contempt  powers against Brooks pursuant to

            the pre-amendment Rule 37(17)(g).  All of the injunctive  and

            declaratory  relief   that  Brooks  sought  in   his  federal

            complaint  was obtained  as  a result  of  the state  court's

            decision.  Brooks  states in  his brief that  "the post  suit

            amendment by  defendants is subject to  impinging Mr. Brooks'

            rights  as  he  is engaged  in  an  ongoing  controversy with

            attorneys  regarding his  right  as a  father."   Appellant's

            Brief,  p. 3.  Those hypothetical future claims, however, are

            not  of sufficient  "immediacy  and reality"  to satisfy  the

            case-or-controversy  requirement.    Boston  Teachers  Union,
                                                 ________________________

            Local 66, 787 F.2d at 15-16.
            ________

                 This  case does  not  fall within  the exception  to the

            mootness   doctrine  for  voluntary  cessation  of  allegedly

                                         -3-

            illegal  conduct.    "This  exception  is  meant  to  prevent

            defendants from  defeating a plaintiff's efforts  to have its

            claims  adjudicated  simply   by  stopping  their  challenged

            actions,  and then  resuming their 'old  ways' once  the case

            became moot."  Boston  Teachers Union, Local 66, 787  F.2d at
                           ________________________________

            16.    Given  the  New  Hampshire  Supreme  Court's  decision

            declaring    the    challenged    pre-amendment    provisions

            unconstitutional,  there is "'no  reasonable expectation that

            the wrong will be  repeated.'"  Preiser v. Newkirk,  422 U.S.
                                            _______    _______

            395, 402 (1975) (citations omitted).

                 II. Attorney's Fees
                     _______________

                 Brooks  argues   that  the   district  court  erred   in

            dismissing, rather  than staying, the federal  action because

            it  included a  request for  attorney's fees  and costs.   In

            Quackenbush  v. Allstate  Ins.  Co., 116  S.  Ct. 1712,  1728
            ___________     ___________________

            (1996), the Supreme  Court held that "federal courts have the

            power  to  dismiss  or   remand  cases  based  on  abstention

            principles only where the relief being sought is equitable or

            otherwise discretionary.  Because  this was a damages action,

            we conclude  that the  District Court's remand  order was  an

            unwarranted   application   of    the   Burford    doctrine."
                                                    _______

            Quackenbush,  116 S.  Ct. at 1728.   Because  Brooks' federal
            ___________

            suit was not an action for damages, and the  relief it sought

                                         -4-

            "is  equitable or  otherwise discretionary,"  the abstention-

            based dismissal was within the court's power. 1
                                                          1

                 The district court's dismissal of this case is summarily
                                                                _________

            affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
            ________   ___

                                
            ____________________

               1 To the extent  that Brooks argues that  the requirements
               1
            of Younger have not been met, this court already decided that
               _______
            issue in its  previous decision. See Brooks v.  New Hampshire
                                             ___ ______     _____________
            Supreme Court, 80 F.3d 633, 638-39 (1st Cir. 1996).
            _____________

                                         -5-