Benavidez v. Eu
| Decision Date | 01 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-16260,92-16260 |
| Citation | 34 F.3d 825 |
| Parties | Sebastian BENAVIDEZ; Enrique Reyes, Jr.; Shirley Castillo; Dolores Marques; Jose C. Casio; Thomas Requejo; Esther Estrada; Jose Armando Villejas; Martin Gutieruiz; Tony De La Rosa; Carmen De La Rosa; Luis Hernandez, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants, and Members of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, Plaintiffs, v. March Fong EU, Secretary of State for the State of California; Assembly of the State of California; Senate of the State of California; Pete Wilson, Governor of the State of California, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Manuel Romero, Denise M. Hulett, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs-intervenors-appellants.
Manuel M. Medeiros, Deputy Atty. Gen., Oliver S. Cox, Staff Counsel, Sacramento, CA, for defendants-appellees.
Gailon W. McGowen, Jr., NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., New York City, for amicus.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before: POOLE, BEEZER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
A group of Latino California residents appeal the three-judge district court's dismissal of their complaint in intervention alleging that California's congressional districting violates the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973 et seq. The district court's opinion articulates no reason for dismissing these plaintiff-intervenors. Appellee Governor Pete Wilson suggests that dismissal was proper either under principles governing jurisdiction over intervenors, or based on abstention. We consider and reject each of these possibilities. Because we can discern no proper basis for the dismissal, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The California Constitution requires the state legislature to redistrict "[i]n the year following the year in which the national census is taken." Cal. Const. art. XXI, Sec. 1. This provision thus mandated a redistricting in 1991, but as of September 1, 1991, no redistricting had been attempted. On September 6, 1991, Governor Pete Wilson filed a petition for original writ with the California Supreme Court, requesting that the Supreme Court proceed with redistricting. On September 23, the Legislature submitted three redistricting plans to the Governor, but he vetoed each one. On September 25, acknowledging the impasse, the California Supreme Court issued a writ of mandate and appointed special masters to proceed with drafting redistricting plans. Wilson v. Eu, 54 Cal.3d 471, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 P.2d 1306 (1991) (Wilson I ).
The Masters proceeded to hold hearings in four cities. At these hearings, they received oral and written presentations from a wide variety of organizations and individuals, as well as 22 proposed plans. Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 707, 742, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379, 395, 823 P.2d 545 (1992) (Wilson III ). 1 The Masters were instructed to consider the Voting Rights Act implications of their proposals. Wilson I, 54 Cal.3d at 473, 286 Cal.Rptr. at 281, 816 P.2d at 1307. However, no additional parties were permitted to intervene. Id. at 474, 286 Cal.Rptr. at 281, 816 P.2d at 1307. The appellants in this case did not participate in the Special Master process, although their attorneys, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund ("MALDEF"), filed an amicus brief, submitted plans, and made one hour of oral argument at one of the Special Master hearings.
The Special Masters presented their report to the California Supreme Court on November 29, 1991. In it, they rejected the 22 plans submitted to them and adopted an entirely new redistricting plan. The Supreme Court held an additional hearing on January 13, 1992. Appellants did not participate, but MALDEF filed an amicus brief and made a 20-minute oral argument. The Supreme Court subsequently approved the Special Masters' plan with only minor modifications on January 27, 1992. Wilson III, 1 Cal.4th at 729, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d at 393, 823 P.2d at 559.
On September 30, 1991, after Governor Wilson had filed suit in state court, members of the California Congressional Delegation filed suit in federal court. Members of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation v. Eu, 790 F.Supp. 925, 928 (N.D.Cal.1992) [hereinafter Congressional Delegation ]. In their suit, they sought to prevent further congressional elections pursuant to the existing districting and to obtain from the federal courts a remedial redistricting order. Because the complaint challenged the existing apportionment on federal constitutional grounds, a three-judge district court was convened. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284(a). On October 8, defendant Governor Wilson filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court elected to withhold any decisions until after the California Supreme Court had acted. On December 18, the original plaintiffs in the district court proceedings filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against use of the special masters' proposed redistricting plan.
At this point, the appellant group of Latino California residents filed a motion to intervene and a complaint in intervention. Their complaint alleged that all of the redistricting plans under consideration by the California Supreme Court or by the legislature violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973 et seq. They alleged further that redistricting based on 1990 census data violated the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause because the failure to account for the undercounting of minority populations contravened the "one person, one vote" principle. Appellants' motion to intervene was granted orally on January 21, 1992, at a hearing on the defendant Governor's motion to dismiss. The district court limited intervention to challenges to California's congressional districts, refusing to allow intervention as to state legislature and assembly redistricting or the undercounting claims.
On January 28, one day after the state Supreme Court adopted its redistricting plan, the district court dismissed the entire action pending before it. Its subsequently-issued opinion based dismissal on Younger abstention grounds. Congressional Delegation, 790 F.Supp. at 930; Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). However, the opinion failed to identify the basis for dismissal of the complaint in intervention. Nor did the subsequent order denying the intervenors' motion for reconsideration identify the basis for dismissal. The intervenors have appealed. On appeal, we are faced with the question of whether that dismissal was proper. 2
As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to decide this appeal. We conclude that we do.
Governor Wilson contests jurisdiction, arguing that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1253 requires appeal to the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals. 3 Section 1253 does generally permit appeal from three-judge district court denials of injunctions directly to the Supreme Court. However, MTM, Inc. v. Baxley, 420 U.S. 799, 95 S.Ct. 1278, 43 L.Ed.2d 636 (1975), controls this case. In MTM, the Supreme Court carved out an exception to Sec. 1253, ruling that when an injunction was denied not on the merits but on the basis of Younger abstention, it had no jurisdiction and direct appeal must be taken in the Court of Appeals. Id. at 804, 95 S.Ct. at 1281. Governor Wilson correctly notes that MTM 's continuing validity following the repeal of 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2281 and 2282 has been questioned. See, e.g., 17 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 4040, at 152-54. But MTM has not been overruled, and we are therefore required to find that we have jurisdiction in this Younger abstention case.
We turn to the merits.
Governor Wilson suggests several procedural grounds which might justify the dismissal of the appellants from this case. We consider each in turn.
Wilson argues first that because the district court dismissed the original plaintiffs, it had no jurisdiction over the case and could not properly allow the appellants to intervene. We disagree. The plaintiffs' case was dismissed on Younger grounds. Younger abstention is not jurisdictional, but reflects a court's prudential decision not to exercise jurisdiction which it in fact possesses:
Before proceeding to the merits of the [Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943) and Younger ] abstention issues, it bears emphasis that [defendant] does not dispute the District Court's jurisdiction to decide [plaintiff's] claim. Our cases have long supported the proposition that federal courts lack the authority to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that has been conferred.... Underlying these assertions is the undisputed constitutional principle that Congress, and not the Judiciary, defines the scope of federal jurisdiction within the constitutionally permissible bounds. Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 83, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922).
That principle does not eliminate, however, and the categorical assertions based upon it do not call into question, the federal courts' discretion in determining whether to grant certain types of relief--a discretion that was part of the common-law background against which the statutes conferring jurisdiction were enacted.
New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 358-59, 109 S.Ct. 2506, 2513, 105 L.Ed.2d 298 (1989) (emphasis in original).
Here, the district court granted permissive intervention on January 21, 1992, prior to its dismissal of the case. The subsequent discretionary decision not to consider the Congressional Delegation's claims for injunctive relief does not alter the fact that prior to dismissal, the district court had the power to consider those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chances, Inc. v. Norton, CIV-S-01-0248 DFL GGH (E.D. Cal. 7/29/2002)
... ... Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (St. Defs.' Motion for Summary Judgment at 56). However, because Younger abstention is not jurisdictional, and because the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief under count IV, it is unnecessary to address the applicability of Younger. See Benavidez v. Eu, 34 F.3d 825, 829 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 358-59 (1989)) ... 29. Redressability is not a problem as to count IV. First, it is likely that the District Attorneys will follow the court's ruling, especially given their ... ...
-
Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. I.C.C.
... ... See Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 983 F.2d 275, 283 (D.C.Cir.1993); Alabama Power Co. v. ICC, 852 F.2d 1361, 1368 (D.C.Cir.1988); Simmons v. ICC, 716 F.2d 40, 46 (D.C.Cir.1983). Numerous other circuit courts have explicitly permitted the practice. See, e.g., Benavidez v. Fong Eu, 34 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.1994) (citing cases); United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 614 F.2d 843, 845 (3d Cir.1979). Since an intervenor must show standing and may not raise new issues not brought before the court by the petitioner, National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Comm'rs v. ICC, ... ...
-
Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Kaye
... ... Such limited participation does not bring Younger to bear on Dow Jones & Company's claims. See Benavidez v. Eu, 34 F.3d 825, 832 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that Younger abstention doctrine does not bar claims of those participating as amicus curiae in state court proceeding) ... As Foxman emphasizes, parties and their counsel must carefully consider their choice of forum when ... ...
-
In re Cohen
... ... United States ex rel. Texas Portland Cement Co. v. McCord, 233 U.S. 157, 163-64, 34 S.Ct. 550, 58 L.Ed. 893 (1914); Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323, 328 (3d Cir.1965); cf., Benavidez v. Eu, 34 F.3d 825, 829 n. 4 (9th Cir.1994); 7C Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1917 (2d ed.1986). Thus, our jurisdiction is doubtful unless the chapter 13 debtors have independent standing to bring the avoiding action. 6 ... ...
-
The income tax exclusion of the housing allowance for ministers of the gospel per I.R.C. section 107: First Amendment establishment of religion or free exercise thereof - where should the Warren court have gone?
...F.3d 1012 (9th Cit. 2002). (31.) FED. R. Civ. P. 24(a), (b). (32.) Warren, 302 F.3d at 1015. (33.) Id. (34.) Id. (quoting Benavidez v. Eu, 34 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. (35.) Id. (36.) Id. (37.) Id. at 1016 (Tallman, J., concurring). (38.) Warren v. Comm'r, 282 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002); Warren v. ......