Court Opinion

ID: 9473169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:21:44.671814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:22.065192
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion which would deny to the plaintiffs in subclass B and to future members of subclass A an injunction preserving any and all unofficial files.1
These plaintiffs — both subclasses — have every right to seek relief in federal court. Where the district court went astray was in going beyond what is justified in a preliminary injunction. Beyond the incidental preservation of existing and future “street” files, nothing in the district court order addresses harm that is irremediable. Ignoring this simple point, the majority launches into discussions of standing and comity that leave the quite unjustifiable impression that the presence of these plaintiffs in federal court is barely supportable. As I see it, there is not the slighest defect in the claim these plaintiffs make to have standing before the federal courts, and it is a misreading of the standing doctrine and of the doctrine of comity to find otherwise.
The issue raised by all of the plaintiffs is precisely analogous to that raised by plaintiffs who seek to prevent disbursement from a fund in which they arguably have a stake, hoping to preserve the fund until their claim has been adjudicated. Such temporary equitable relief would be para-digmatically appropriate. Although it may turn out that certain of the plaintiffs cannot establish that their claims are legitimate, and therefore cannot prevail on the merits, nevertheless if the fund is disbursed it will be too late even to consider the merits of their claims.2 The preliminary relief sought by plaintiffs in this case is appropriate for exactly similar reasons. There is a fund of information — that contained in the informal or “street” files— against which plaintiffs, and all who are now or will in the future be similarly situated, have an arguable claim. At trial plaintiffs will seek a permanent injunction against maintaining separate files, and they will also seek damages. Whether they will prevail on the merits is something for the trial court to decide, but there is no question that in this regard the complaint is complete enough to establish standing. Since there is standing to seek a permanent *580injunction and damages, plaintiffs have an arguable stake in the information in the informal files, and therefore, since destruction of the files irreparably impairs their case, they have no choice but to ask for a preliminary injunction preventing the destruction of the files.
The doctrine of standing limits access to the courts, but that is incidental to its purpose. The doctrine was not intended to reduce the case load of the federal courts, but rather to insure that the courts are called upon to resolve only conflicts that are fully developed and properly argued, and to insure that the parties do not undertake to accomplish in the courts what is more properly accomplished by the other branches of government. Constitutionally what is required is that neither injury to the plaintiff, nor causation by the defendant nor redressability by the action of the court be speculative or remote. The courts have further required that the grievance not be overly general, and that the right being asserted belong to the plaintiff and be within the zone of interests meant to be protected by the statute or provision under which the suit is being brought.
None of these requirements would bar the present case. The injury is concrete and not so generalized as to be more appropriate for resolution by the legislative branch. It is an injury that will have been caused by the defendants, and it is redress-able only in advance, by a preliminary injunction. The grievance is specific to this class of plaintiffs, and the right being asserted is theirs. The doctrine of standing is a complex web, and all the parts of it must be satisfied; but attention to the details of the doctrine does not require us to give up our common sense. “[T]he constitutional standing requirement [cannot be made] a mechanical exercise.” Allen v. Wright, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3325, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984).
Plaintiffs have asked for relief “on their own behalf and on behalf of the subclass of persons who are similarly situated, and who have been or who will be deprived of their federal and state Constitutional rights.” Appellants’ Brief, Appendix at 45 (emphasis supplied). Since the majority does move to preserve the existing files of subclass A plaintiffs, the real point of the standing discussion is to justify the denial of future relief — that is, the denial of similar relief to the future members of the class.
When plaintiffs have a right to bring a suit, the class action suit makes it possible for them to bring the suit on behalf of others who are similarly situated, including (especially under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23b(2)) those who may in the future have similar claims. See, e.g., Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 508 F.2d 239, 254 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2415, 44 L.Ed.2d 679 (1975); Ingram v. O’Bannon, 88 F.R.D. 653, 656 (E.D.Pa.1980); see also Doe v. Charleston Area Medical Center, 529 F.2d 638, 645 (4th Cir.1975) (speculative and conclusory representations as to class size suffice for declaratory and injunctive relief); Dudo v. Schaffer, 82 F.R.D. 695, 699 (E.D.Pa.1979) (“[C]ourts often define classes to include persons who have not yet been affected by the challenged policies, but who may be affected by them in the future.”) In any given case, it may or may not be appropriate for a federal court to certify a class containing future members; but this is a question of certification, and not of standing. When the courts deny a class standing because of the remoteness or speculativeness of the injury — as the Supreme Court did in Lyons — the injury has been speculative or remote with respect to the in-eourt plaintiffs. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). I believe it is inappropriate to address what is essentially a class certification issue on standing grounds. If the named plaintiffs have a legitimate claim to have their files preserved, and if they legitimately represent the class of present and future criminal defendants in a similar position, then standing to seek the preservation of the files of the future members should not be an issue at all. Since I believe that the class A plaintiffs have every right to bring this suit seeking preservation of their own files, and since I see no *581reason why they may not represent a class which includes not only present but also future members, I cannot agree with the discussion of standing and the conclusion that follows from it.
The majority, for reasons of comity, also offers no relief to those in-court plaintiffs whose convictions are still to come. There would appear to be three avenues of relief for the plaintiffs in this subclass: the avenue we have closed today, of resolving the matter as a whole in federal court; the avenue of resolving the matter as a whole in state court; and the avenue of resolving the matter individually during prisoners’ state court trials. Since plaintiffs are not required to institute a section 1983 suit — or any similar suit based on state law — in state court before approaching the federal courts, Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 500, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 2559, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 472-73, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1222-23, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183, 81 S.Ct. 473, 481, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), I take it the majority does not suggest that this action as a whole be revived in state court, but rather intends the last to be the plaintiffs’ remedy: a case-by-case adjudication of the matter in the plaintiffs’ individual criminal proceedings.
In its search for a justification for its distinction between subclass A and subclass B, the majority turns to the Younger doctrine. It is beyond my powers of exegesis to find this case in Younger. Even if Younger is to be extended, as in Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976), to include nonjudicial state action, it applies only where “the federal plaintiff can secure a full and fair hearing” on his constitutional claims by raising them as a defense in a state enforcement proceeding. P. Bator, P. Mish-kin, D. Shapiro, & H. Wechsler, Hart & Wechsler’s The Federal Courts And The Federal System 283 (1981 Supp.) Where the rights of the plaintiffs could not be adequately protected in state proceedings, Younger has not been applied. In District Properties Associates v. District of Columbia, 743 F.2d 21 (D.C.Cir.1984), deference to the district courts was held to be inappropriate because case-by-case determination would be inadequate as a remedy. In such situations, “there is no general principle that forbids federal courts from ‘interfering’ in the processes of state and local courts when that interference is in reality the vindication of federal rights in cases within their jurisdiction.” Id. at 27. The court cited Silverman v. Barry, 727 F.2d 1121 (D.C.Cir.1984), in which Judge Bork held that “sensitivity and the notion of local-ism alone do not provide a principled rationale for abstention where federal jurisdiction admittedly exists. Federal courts routinely decide local matters of great sensitivity and we are not convinced that abstention from a federal question case may be based on this rationale.” Id. at 1124, n. 4.
What is at issue here is the destruction of files of evidence before subclass B plaintiffs come to trial. This injury cannot be prevented by having them litigate the injury in that very trial.3 Even the federal writ of habeas corpus does not require the exhaustion of state remedies where the imposition of that requirement would irreparably harm the claim being made. In Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973), a case in many ways similar to this one, the Supreme Court held that habeas was available on the question of a denial of *582a speedy trial even though state remedies had not been exhausted. In that case, as here, to insist that the issue in question be litigated as a defense in the upcoming trial could be tantamount to denying the prisoner the protection- he sought.
I am willing to leave to the state courts, in the first instance, the question whether the material preserved must be produced. Habeas may ultimately be the proper avenue of recourse to the federal courts for objecting to decisions of the state court on this matter. But I fail to see how ordering the preservation of the files can in any way interfere with ongoing state proceedings. Should a prisoner come into federal courts asking to have proceedings against him enjoined because his file was destroyed— an odd course of action, surely — that might be the appropriate time to consider the ramifications of the Younger doctrine. The injunction that the plaintiffs now seek is not directed at the state prosecutions. In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the state of Florida to make determinations of probable cause for detainees, the Supreme Court said:
The District Court correctly held that respondent’s claim for relief was not barred by the equitable restriction on federal jurisdiction in state prosecutions, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, [91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669] (1971). The injunction was not directed at the state prosecutions as such, but only at the length of pretrial detention without a judicial hearing, an issue that could not be raised in defense of the criminal prosecution. The order to hold preliminary hearings could not prejudice the conduct of the trial on the merits.
Id. at 108, n. 9, 95 S.Ct. at 860, n. 9. In the case before us, even if the issue of the destruction of files could be raised as a defense (I am not clear how), the harm would already have been done.
The majority makes considerable reference to Lyons, and it is instructive to see just how Lyons differs from the case before us. In Lyons, an injunction was sought to prevent the Los Angeles police from ever using chokeholds in ordinary circumstances. The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the suit, largely because it was speculative that he would ever again be in trouble with the law. The plaintiff was not suffering ongoing harm — he was not at the time of trial being choked — and he was not threatened imminently with being choked. Since the injury was past, there was a complete remedy at law: he could have sought damages. Had the city held him in a chokehold during the litigation of his claim, thereby putting him in fear for his life, an injunction would have been appropriate; once he was dead, damages would be an inadequate remedy. In the case before us, once the files are destroyed the damage is done.
These plaintiffs clearly have standing. Their files are in danger of being destroyed. Certainly they have the right to ask for a preliminary injunction; the question of a permanent injunction is not before us now. The question is so serious, and the threatened harm so great, that I find that the majority’s deference to some future state proceeding in the name of comity to be a miscalculation of constitutional values. I cannot think of a single reason to defer to the state here. Deference is not necessary in a 1983 proceeding; the issue is a federal rather than a state issue; to defer will prolong rather than shorten the litigation; no state proceeding on the matter before us is now ongoing; and the delay involved may cause irreparable harm.
I would not affirm the holding of the district court which undertook to prescribe procedures for the Chicago Police Department but paid little attention to the details of the plaintiffs’ request. I would remand for a preliminary injunction to preserve the “street” and other informal files, and I would not restrict it to the files of the present members of class A but would extend it to the files of all members of class A and class B.

. If the practice of maintaining separate files were struck down — as plaintiffs request and as the district court ordered — there would be no need to order the preservation of the files of ■future criminal defendants. I would be in favor of striking down that practice, but I concede that it may go beyond what is called for in a preliminary injunction. Whatever the correct course, the majority has not struck the practice down, and so, for the duration of the preliminary injunction at least, since there is no guarantee that no new informal files will be created, the preservation of such files should be ordered too. The Police Department's voluntary enactment of Special Order 83-1, although helpful, is of course irrelevant to the question of injunctive relief. United States v. W.T. Grant, 345 U.S. 629, 632, 73 S.Ct. 894, 897, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953).

. A federal court that failed for reasons of comity to enjoin state action that threatened to disburse the fund while federal proceedings were ongoing would be remiss too. See Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 412, 84 S.Ct. 1579, 1582, 12 L.Ed.2d 409 (1964); Barancik v. Investors Funding Corp., 489 F.2d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 1973); Heyman v. Kline, 456 F.2d 123, 131 (2d Cir.1972); Hyde Construction Co. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501, 502, 508 (10th Cir.1968) (all holding that judicial proceedings can be enjoined in these circumstances).

. The majority feels that motions to preserve the evidence filed in state courts will protect the constitutional rights of those not yet convicted. I have made it clear that I am not at all sure that this is so. But even if it were, the majority overlooks the fact that there is no guarantee that in the future such evidence will not be destroyed before future criminal defendants are in a position to make such a motion. In any case, I reiterate that there will be no interference with criminal proceedings because of an order to preserve from the federal court, and that even if there were we are not obliged in circumstances such as these to defer to a state court determination of whether the files are to be preserved or not. There is simply too much at stake.