Summary
holding that Younger applies to claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, not to damages claims
Summary of this case from Gindi v. BennettOpinion
No. 07-5392-pr.
May 15, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joanna Seybert, Judge).
UPON CONSIDERATION WHERE-OF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.
Annselm Morpurgo, Sag Harbor, NY, pro se.
Andrew T. Towner, Caleca Towner, PC, East Hampton, NY, for Defendants-Appellees Christine Stanley, also known as Helga Morpurgo, Andrew T. Towner, and Caleca Towner, PC.
Anton Piotroski, Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey Pender, P.C., Syosset, NY, for Defendants-Appellees John Jermain Memorial Library, Gregory N. Ferraris, and the John Jermain Future Fund.
Diane K. Farrell, Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, NY, for Defendants-Appellees The Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor, Sag Harbor Village Police, Sag Harbor Village Buildings Department, Edward Deyermond, Gregory N. Ferraris, Thomas Fabiano, Patrick Milazzo, Timothy Piatt, and Building Inspector Albert Daniels.
Amiel S. Gross, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin Quartararo LLP, Riverhead, NY, for Defendants-Appellees Suffolk County Water Authority and Paul Greenwood.
Sharon A. Sandell, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Peter Darrow.
PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Annselm Morpurgo ("plaintiff) appeals, pro se, from a November 8, 2007 judgment entered in the District Court, in which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). We assume the parties' familiarity with the factual and procedural history of the case, as well as the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court's determination that "the requirements for abstention [under Younger] have been met." Diamond "D" Constr. Corp. v. McGowan, 282 F.3d 191, 197 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Schlagler v. Phillips, 166 F.3d 439, 441 (2d Cir. 1999)). " Younger abstention is required when three conditions are met: (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding; (2) an important state interest is implicated in that proceeding; and (3) the state proceeding affords the federal plaintiff an adequate opportunity for judicial review of the federal constitutional claims." Diamond "D" Constr. Corp., 282 F.3d at 198. However, we have held that "application of the Younger doctrine is inappropriate where the litigant seeks money damages for an alleged violation of § 1983 . . ." Rivers v. McLeod, 252 F.3d 99, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Kirschner v. Klemons, 225 F.3d 227, 238 (2d Cir. 2000)).
Upon a review of the record, we conclude that insofar as plaintiff was seeking injunctive relief, the District Court properly found that the three Younger factors were met and accordingly properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction. However, we conclude that the District Court erred in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims for monetary damages.
We intimate no view on the merits of these claims.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED with respect to plaintiffs claims seeking injunctive relief, but VACATED with respect to plaintiffs claims for monetary damages, and the cause is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this order.