Smith v. County of Santa Cruz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 DAVID R SMITH, Case No. 20-cv-00647-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUESTING 9 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY OCTOBER 16, 2020 10 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 The Court is considering if it is required to abstain from adjudicating 1) Plaintiff David 14 Smith’s eighth claim for a writ of mandate under Cal. Civil Code § 1094.5 against Defendants 15 John McSpadden and the County of Santa Cruz (“the County”), and 2) Mr. Smith’s ninth claim for 16 a writ of mandate under the same Section, to the extent it is based on the McSpadden protest 17 hearing decision that was originally issued on February 21, 2020, under the Younger abstention 18 doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 19 “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in overlapping principles of 20 equity, comity, and federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action 21 Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008) Federal Courts are required to 22 abstain under Younger “if four requirements are met: (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; 23 (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from 24 litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action 25 would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the 26 state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.” Id. 27 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Defendants and Plaintiff Smith to submit a three-page 1 There will be no additional briefing on this topic. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || Dated: October 9, 2020 kom Lh ham tn) 6 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28