Opinion
Case No. 00-CV-74078-DT
March 31, 2001
JUDGMENT
This action having come before the Court and pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered this date,
Accordingly,
Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. FACTS
Plaintiff filed a cause of action in Wayne County Circuit Court, Case No. 00-9051 6-CF, contesting the seizure of her vehicle in a drug forfeiture action. Plaintiff also filed this cause of action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on January 27, 2000 against Fred Watkins, John D. O'Hair, The County of Wayne, Benny Napoleon and the City of Detroit. Plaintiff contended that on January 7, 2000, Jack Barrett was arrested for disorderly conduct and the attempted purchase of marijuana. At the time of the arrest, Jack Barrett was driving a 1996 Jeep Cherokee bearing VIN 1J4FJ68S7TL279850. Plaintiff, Nicole Loch, is the owner of the subject Jeep Cherokee.
At the time of his arrest, Jack Barrett was given a notice of criminal complaint. Plaintiff's vehicle was seized pursuant to M.C.L. § 333.7522. The notice stated that "[t]o contest the forfeiture of your property you must file a claim at the address listed below, within twenty days of receipt of this notice. You must include a statement of your interest in the vehicle."
Plaintiff contends that she notified the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office as directed in the notice. Plaintiff alleges that she was told that if she did not enter into a settlement with the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, the 1996 Jeep Cherokee would be returned to her leinholder. Plaintiff alleged that she attempted to post bond, but was told that the vehicle would be returned to the leinholder without a forfeiture proceeding.
Plaintiff filed the following causes of action: Count 1 — Operation Push — Off violates 14th Amendment Due Process; Count II — 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (failure to train, policy, 14th 4th Amendment); Count III — 42 U.S.C. § (Fifth Amendment — deprivation of property without due process); Count IV — Abuse of Process against Defendant Watkins; and Count V — Conversion.
Since the filing of the suit, Plaintiff has had a hearing regarding the constitutionally of the Michigan Forfeiture Statute on February 8, 2000 in Wayne County Circuit Court. Judge Michael Sapala rejected Plaintiff's contention that seizure of vehicles under the Michigan forfeiture law was unlawful pursuant to M.C.L.A. § 33 3.7721(a)(iii). The court did not, however, specifically address the constitutional issues raised by the parties in this case. Instead, the court found that Wayne County might be able to show more than mere possession of marijuana by Jack Barrett and that the seizure of the vehicle was appropriate. Trial on Plaintiff's innocent/owner defense was scheduled to go forward on June 22, 2000. In 1996 Jeep and Nicole Loch, the Wayne County Circuit Court denied Loch's motion for directed verdict brought on June 22, 2000, but dismissed the matter after trial. The court found that Plaintiff's boyfriend who had possession of the vehicle at the time of its seizure was not a constructive owner and that Plaintiff Loch was an innocent owner. Plaintiff Loch's motion for reconsideration for assessment of towing and storage fees was heard on July 11, 2000. On August 1, 2000, the Wayne County Circuit Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiff's state court action and requiring $600.00 to be paid in order for Plaintiff to regain her vehicle. A Stay of Execution Order and Judgment was entered by the trial court as it relates to the towing and storage of fees in order to allow the parties to perfect an appeal.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment and/or Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and a Motion to Amend Complaint and Seek Class Action Status. In response, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(1). Both Plaintiff's and Defendants' motions are now before this Court.
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint to add James Edward Craemer and Alfonzo Floyd, Jr. as Plaintiffs. Mr. Craemer and a passenger were stopped by the Canton police. Drug paraphernalia and marijuana were found inside the vehicle. Mr. Craemer's vehicle was seized. Mr. Floyd's vehicle was also seized when drug paraphernalia was found inside his vehicle.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), the plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the motion. Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Authority, 895 F.2d 266, 269 (6th Cir. 1990). In reviewing such a facial attack, a court takes the allegations in the complaint as true, a similar safeguard to that employed under 12(b)(6) which governs motions to dismiss. Ohio Nat'l Life Insurance. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990).
III. ANALYSIS A. Abstention
Both the City and County Defendants argue that this Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this cause of action because there is a similar action pending in state court. Defendant, Wayne County, specifically states that the Younger, Rooker-Feldman Pullman Doctrines apply. All abstention doctrines suggest abstaining where an issue of state law is questioned. The issue of state law in this cause of action is whether Michigan's Forfeiture Law exempts the seizure of vehicles where the incident merely involved the possession of marijuana.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); and Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).
Plaintiff in this action also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and damages claiming: unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; deprivation of due process stemming from a lack of an adequate state remedy either pre- or post-seizure; conspiracy to violate civil rights (and those of the class Plaintiff seeks to represent); a pattern, policy, or practice to violate civil rights; a violation of the Eighth Amendment with respect to the remedy under the Michigan Forfeiture Law as applied by Operation Push-Off (a program of the Defendants to seize vehicles and subject them to forfeiture under the Michigan Forfeiture law). In addition, Plaintiff has alleged state law tort claims of conversion and tortious interference with contract and business relationships.
A United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court judicial proceedings. Review of such judgments may be had in the United States Supreme Court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). To the extent that a District Court is requested to review a State Court's order, the District Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over those complaints. Lower federal courts possess no power whatsoever to sit in direct review of state court decisions. If the constitutional claims presented to a United States District Court are inextricably intertwined with a state court's denial in a judicial proceeding of a particular plaintiff's complaint, then the district court is in essence being called upon to review the state court decision, which the district court may not do. Id.. at 483. To the extent that a general challenge to the constitutionality of a certain rule is alleged the District Court does have subject matter jurisdiction over those complaints. Id.at 482-83. The Feldman case involved a constitutional challenge to a state's regulation of lawyers. The Supreme Court in Feldman in determining whether or not a constitutional claim is inextricably intertwined to a ste court's order in a judicial proceeding, stated:
. . . We have recognized that state supreme courts may act in a nonjudicial capacity in promulgating rules regulating the bar. (citations omitted). Challenges to the constitutionality of the state bar rules, therefore, do not necessarily require a United States district court to review a final state-court judgment in a judicial proceeding. Instead, the district court may simply be asked to assess the validity of a rule promulgated in a nonjudicial proceeding. If this is the case, the district court is not reviewing a state-court judicial decision. In this regard, 28 U.S.C. § 1257 does not act as a bar to the district court's consideration of the case and because the proceedings giving rise to the rule are nonjudicial the policies prohibiting United States district court review of final state-court judgment are not implicated. United States district courts, therefore, have subject-matter jurisdiction over general challenges to state bar rules, promulgated by state courts in nonjudicial proceedings which do not require review of a final state-court judgment in a particular case. They do not have jurisdiction, however, over challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional. Review of those decisions may be had only in this (U.S. Supreme Court) Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1257.Feldman, 460 U.S. at 485-86. Federal courts require that a plaintiff raise his federal constitutional claims at the state level before the federal courts will review a state court's decision. The Supreme Court has noted the competence of state courts to adjudicate federal constitutional claims. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483. Principles of equity, comity and federalism in certain circumstances counsel abstention in deference to ongoing state proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
In Younger, the Supreme Court held that a federal court should not interfere with a pending state criminal proceeding except in the rare situation where an injunction is necessary to prevent great and immediate injury. Id.at 44. The Supreme Court has applied abstention to state civil proceedings which involve important state interests and to a variety of state administrative proceedings. Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n., 457 U.S. 423 (1982). The Supreme Court has enumerated a three-part test to determine abstention:
(1) Whether the proceedings involved constitute an ongoing state judicial proceeding;
(2) Do the proceedings implicate important state interest; and
(3) Is there an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges?Id.. at 432.
B. Ongoing State Judicial Proceeding
In this case, the underlying proceeding involved the enforcement of Michigan Forfeiture Law. If a state action is pending when the federal complaint was filed, the federal action must be dismissed. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975). Where there is a pending state judicial proceeding, the Supreme Court has held that "[a] judicial inquiry investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past and under laws supposed already to exist." New Orleans Public Services, Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 370 (1989). So long as state court judicial review is available, Younger abstention applies. Fieger v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 740, 745 (6th Cir. 1996).
The first requirement of the Younger abstention has been met. There is no dispute that the state proceedings in this case involve the seizure of vehicles under Michigan's Drug Forfeiture law. The trial court also entered a stay of execution of its Order and Judgment as it relates to the towing and storage of fees in order allow Plaintiff to perfect an appeal.
C. Important State Interests
The second prong of the abstention analysis has also been met. The state proceedings before the Wayne County Circuit Court regarding Michigan's Drug Forfeiture law involves paramount state interests where Michigan has a vital interest in discouraging and repressing commerce in the instrumentalities of drug abuse and addiction. (See Caldwell v. Camp, 594 F.2d 705 (8th Cir. 1979)).
D. Adequate Opportunity to Raise Constitutional Issues
The third requirement for abstention, that there be an adequate opportunity in state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges, has been met. Abstention is appropriate unless state law clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional claims. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 425-26 (1979). The burden rests on the federal plaintiff to show that state procedural law barred presentation of the plaintiff's claims. Id.at 432.
Plaintiff has had the opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the procedures in Wayne County Circuit Court. Plaintiff also has the opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of Michigan Drug Forfeiture laws in Michigan appellate courts. There has been no showing that the rules and procedures established in Michigan bar Plaintiff from presenting her constitutional claims before the Michigan courts.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant City of Detroit's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 11, filed June 16, 2000) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Wayne County's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 12, filed June 19, 2000) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment and/or Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (Docket Nos. 7-1 and 7-2, filed May 19, 2000) is DENIED without prejudice based upon this Court's abstention.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint Seek Class Action Status (Docket No. 8, filed May 19, 2000) is DENIED without prejudice based upon this Court's abstention.