Igbinosun v. Winfield ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-31079
Summary Calendar
AIMUAMWOSA JOHNBULL IGBINOSUN;
JIM & LU ENTERPRISES, INC., doing
business as Jim & Lu’s Grocery,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
W.T. WINFIELD; E.J. RHODES; ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, of the City
of Baton Rouge & East Baton Rouge
Parish; CITY OF BATON ROUGE; J.
MARCUS WRIGHT; STERLING ANTHONY; ED
CAMPENELLA; TODD COLE; LEROY COLTER;
WATSON TEBO; JERRY ARBOUR; MIKE
WALKER; MILTON LEE,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-450-A
- - - - - - - - - -
December 15, 2000
Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Aimuamwosa Johnbull Igbinosun and Jim & Lu’s Enterprises,
Inc. (“Jim & Lu’s”) appeal the district court’s judgments
dismissing their civil rights challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-31079
-2-
as barred from federal review under the Parratt/Hudson** doctrine
and the court’s dismissal of their challenges to the
constitutionality of Baton Rouge City Ordinance § 1:152(10) as
barred by the Younger*** abstention doctrine. We have reviewed
the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law,
and we find no reversible error.
Jim & Lu’s filed a state action in June 1998 raising the
same “important state interest” issues they raised in their
federal action: a challenge to the constitutionality of the city
ordinance; alleged due process violations; and arbitrary,
capricious, and unauthorized denial of their liquor license.
Although the state action was filed subsequent to the federal
proceedings, the state proceedings were pending when the district
court ordered the parties to brief the issue whether such
proceedings were ongoing so that the Younger abstention was
applicable. The district court did not abuse its discretion by
invoking the Younger abstention to dismiss Jim & Lu’s federal
challenge to the constitutionality of § 1:152(10). See Louisiana
Debating and Literary Ass’n v. City of New Orleans, 42 F.3d 1483,
1489-90 (5th Cir. 1995).
Additionally, based upon the allegations in Jim & Lu’s
complaint, the district court properly determined that the
**
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541-44 (1981),
overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327(1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).
***
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971).
No. 98-31079
-3-
alleged illegal conspiracy among the defendants could not have
been predicted or countered by the state “predeprivation,” and
that the alleged arbitrary actions of the defendants was
unauthorized. The court also determined correctly that Jim &
Lu’s had access to adequate postdeprivation remedies under state
law pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33:4788, which provides for
appeals from the suspension or revocation of permits, including
alcoholic beverage control boards’ revocations of liquor
licenses. Id. Under Parratt/Hudson then, Jim & Lu’s cannot
raise their civil rights claims in the instant § 1983 suit. See
Sheppard v. Louisiana Bd. of Parole, 873 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir.
1989) (quoting Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533-35).
AFFIRMED.