Lara v. City of Albuquerque ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 4 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROBERT LARA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
No. 96-2217
LAWRENCE RAEL, Chief (D.C. No. CIV-95-366-BB)
Administrative Officer, in his official (District of New Mexico)
capacity; CITY PERSONNEL
BOARD,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Robert Lara, previously an employee of the City of Albuquerque, appeals
the district court’s decision to stay his federal court action against the city, in
which he alleges breach of contract and denial of his rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Because the district
court failed to provide reasons for its discretionary decision to grant the stay
sought by the city, we reverse and remand.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
The substance of Mr. Lara’s claims against Albuquerque is not before us;
we therefore cite only those facts relevant to our disposition of the present
procedural matter. After he was fired by the city, Mr. Lara challenged his
termination before a municipal administrative body, which ruled against his
claim. Mr. Lara also filed a state court action alleging, among other things,
breach of contract and denial of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
Appellee removed that action to federal court. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Lara filed
another state court action, this time appealing dismissal of the earlier
administrative proceedings. When this latter action was pending in state court,
appellee moved the district court to enter an order of abstention and stay the
federal proceedings pending resolution of the ongoing state action between the
two parties. Citing Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States,
424 U.S. 800 (1976), the district court granted the motion “pending resolution of
the parallel state court action . . . now pending . . . .” Appellant’s App. at 18.
Under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, district courts may abstain
from the exercise of jurisdiction when certain factors weigh in favor of deference
to contemporaneous “parallel” state court proceedings. Fox v. Maulding, 16 F.3d
1079, 1081-82 (10th Cir. 1994). “Suits are parallel if substantially the same
parties litigate substantially the same issues in different forums.” Id. at 1081
(quoting New Beckley Mining Corp. v. International Union, UMWA, 946 F.2d
-2-
1072, 1073 (4th Cir. 1991)). If the district court determines that the suits are
parallel, it may abstain in “exceptional circumstances” upon consideration of a
number of factors, including: (1) the inconvenience of the federal forum; (2) the
desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; and (3) the order in which the courts
assumed jurisdiction. Id. at 1082.
The decision to abstain under Colorado River is left to the discretion of the
district court. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460
U.S. 1, 19 (1983). “If we are to conduct any meaningful review of a district
court's exercise of discretion under the Colorado River doctrine, the court must
make its findings about the parallel nature of the state and federal proceedings
and the balance of the factors on the record." Id. at 1082. Here, the district court
did not explain why the state court proceedings were parallel, what Colorado
River factors it considered, and what weight it attached to each in its
determination to abstain. Therefore, the findings are insufficient for our review
and the case must be remanded for further consideration. Id.
REVERSED and REMANDED for additional proceedings consistent with
this order and judgment.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-