Strait Shooters Inc v. St Tammany Parish ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31413
Summary Calendar
STRAIT SHOOTERS INC, doing business as Parkview Tavern
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
ST TAMMANY PARISH; ET AL
Defendants
ST TAMMANY PARISH; RODNEY STRAIN, in his official capacity
as Sheriff of St Tammany Parish; WALTER P REED, in his
official capacity as District Attorney of St Tammany Parish;
HENRY BILLIOT, in his official capacity as Councilman of St
Tammany Parish and individually; DONALD SHARP, Major
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
USDC No. 01-CV-997-N
--------------------
July 11, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Strait Shooters, Inc., d/b/a Parkview Tavern (“Parkview”)
appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
defendants and dismissal of Parkview’s complaint pursuant to the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-31413
-2-
district court’s determination that it should abstain from
hearing the case under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
Parkview asserted causes of action against St. Tammany Parish
(“Parish”) and certain Parish officials, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1985 and state law; the complaint sought a
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages. Parkview’s
claims stem from the Parish’s criminal citation of Parkview’s
employees for violations of various Parish ordinances and state
statutes. Parkview contends that the suit falls within the bad-
faith exception to the Younger abstention doctrine, that the
state court is an inappropriate forum for its claims, that the
district court’s abstention was untimely, and that the district
court erred in dismissing its claims for monetary damages.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
abstaining pursuant to Younger. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 283 F.3d 650, 652 (5th
Cir. 2002) (decision to abstain is reviewed for abuse of
discretion, but whether elements of particular abstention
doctrine are met is reviewed de novo). Parkview did not meet its
burden of showing that there is a genuine issue that the Parish
engaged in bad faith or that the case is otherwise excepted from
Younger; the ordinances at issue have not been held
unconstitutional, and the evidence did not show that deterrence,
retaliation, or harassment were major motivating factors in the
prosecutions. See, e.g., Nobby Lobby, Inc., v. Dallas, 970 F.2d
No. 01-31413
-3-
82, 87-88 (5th Cir. 1992). Parkview has not shown that it will
not have an opportunity to have its constitutional claims heard
in state court. See Ballard v. Wilson, 856 F.2d 1568, 1571 (5th
Cir. 1988).
The district court’s abstention was not untimely under Hicks
v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975); the parties agree that the
criminal proceedings were instituted prior to the filing of the
federal suit and the district court had not acted on the merits
of Parkview’s claims.
Finally, the district court did not err in dismissing rather
than staying the damages claims. Because a judgment in
Parkview’s favor on its damages claims would necessarily imply
the invalidity of a subsequent conviction or sentence on the
pending charges, Parkview does not have a cause of action until
it can show that it has met the requirements of Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994). See Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 103
(5th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment abstaining
pursuant to Younger and dismissing all claims is AFFIRMED.