Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

David Allen Mann v. Rita Jett, Ricki MacEy and County of Pima Arizona

781 F.2d 1448

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1986-02-10
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding abstention appropriate where the plaintiff could adequately litigate his deprivation-of-counsel claim, for which he had sought damages in federal court, in the state criminal proceeding
  • abstaining from action seeking declaratory judgment and money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  • Younger applies where claim is based on denial of right to counsel in ongoing state criminal case
  • abstention appropriate where § 1983 plaintiff sought damages 20 for denial of right to counsel in ongoing state criminal case
  • “When a state 27 criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as 1 have a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings”
  • “When a state criminal prosecution has begun the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for damages “where such an action would have 24 a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings.”
  • “When a state criminal prosecution has begun the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for damages 25 “where such an action would have a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings.”
  • “When a state 27 criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for declaratory relief and damages “where such an 28 1 Parenthood, 759, F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed David Allen Mann v. Rita Jett, Ricki MacEy and County of Pima Arizona. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
113 opinions
MANN v. JETT,781 F.2d 1448(9th Cir. 1986)
DAVID ALLEN MANN, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, v. RITA JETT, RICKI MACEY, AND COUNTY
OF PIMA ARIZONA, DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.
No. 85-2008.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 2, 1985.fn*
Decided February 10, 1986.
Page 1449
David Allen Mann, Florence, Ariz., for plaintiff/appellant.

Thomas E. Dugal, Tucson, Ariz., for defendants/appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, SNEED and HUG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Mann appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the defendants in an action for declaratory relief and money damages brought under42 U.S.C. § 1983(1982) against Pima County, Rita Jett (an attorney in the Pima County Attorney's office), and Ricki Macey (a legal assistant in the same office) alleging denial of Mann's sixth amendment right to counsel.

[2] Mann contends that his sixth amendment right to counsel was abridged because although his Arizona indictment issued on July 8, 1983, and he requested counsel on April 5, 1984, counsel was not appointed to represent him until March 29, 1985. The delay in appointment of counsel was due to difficulties in extradicting Mann from California.

[3] The Supreme Court has held that "a federal court should not enjoin a state criminal prosecution begun prior to the institution of the federal suit except in very unusual situations, where necessary to prevent immediate irreparable injury."Samuels v. Mackell,401 U.S. 66, 69, 91 S.Ct. 764, 766, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971) (citingYounger v. Harris,401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971)). It is clear that a state criminal prosecution has "begun" within the meaning of theYoungerrule when, as in this case, an indictment has been returned.See Younger,401 U.S. at 38-39, 41, 91 S.Ct. at 747, 749. When a state criminal prosecution has begun, theYoungerrule directly bars a declaratory judgment action.Samuels,401 U.S. at 73, 91 S.Ct. at 768. While the Supreme Court has not decided whetherYoungerrequires abstention in the context of a section 1983 damage action,see Juidice v. Vail,430 U.S. 327, 339 n. 16, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 1219, n. 16, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977), several circuit courts have abstained where such an action would have had a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings.See McCurry v. Allen,606 F.2d 795, 799 (8th Cir. 1979),rev'd on other grounds,449 U.S. 90, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980);Martin v. Merola,532 F.2d 191, 194-95 (2d Cir. 1976);Guerro v. Mulhearn,498 F.2d 1249, 1251-55 (1st Cir. 1974).

[4] We conclude that abstention is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Mann can adequately litigate in the ongoing state criminal proceedings his underlying claim of unconstitutional deprivation of counsel, and "the potential for federal-state friction [resulting from federal intervention] is obvious."Guerro,498 F.2d at 1253.

[5] REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.Page 697
  1. The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 3(f) and and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a). ↩