Court Opinion

ID: 9457199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:15:35.808877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:15.640905
License: Public Domain

TIMBERS, District Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the opinion of Judge Moore, but I believe reversal of the judgment of the District Court is warranted on the following additional ground.
To me, this is a classic example of abuse of Section 1983 jurisdiction: a constitutional challenge asserted against *1046a Vermont statute which, for aught that appears, has never been construed by the Vermont state courts; it involves the administration of a Vermont state prison; it is brought by a former Vermont state prisoner; and the prisoner’s able Vermont lawyer candidly admitted at the time of argument that he turned to the federal court rather than to the Vermont state courts simply because he preferred the former to the latter, there being not even an entry fee impediment in the Vermont state courts.
It seems to me that this is precisely the sort of case in which the federal courts should stay their hands until the state courts have spoken. See Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 439-43 (1971) (dissenting opinion by Burger, Ch. J.); Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 43-44 (1970); Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U.S. 82, 86-87 (1970); Harmon v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 534 (1965); City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U.S. 639, 640-41 (1959); Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 501 (1941).