Carras v. Williams

• Decision Date: 15 December 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-1331,85-1331
• Citation: 807 F.2d 1286
• Parties: James J. CARRAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. Mennen WILLIAMS, Chief Justice; Thomas G. Kavanagh, Justice; James L. Ryan, Justice; James H. Brickley, Justice; Michael F. Cavanagh, Justice; Charles L. Levin, Justice; Patricia L. Boyle, Justice; of the Supreme Court of Michigan in their official capacity; Daniel Walsh, State Court Administrator in his official capacity; Joseph R. McDonald, Circuit Judge, in his individual and official capacity; Eugene C. Penzien, Circuit Judge, in his individual and official capacity; James Andrzejewski; David F. Oeming, Jr.; Robert D. Kinsey, Jr.; Stan Baker; Ray Priddy; Ann Priddy; Fred Hayes; Ron Stevens d/b/a Stevens Farm; Thomas Chisolm; and Vida Randall, Defendants- Appellees. . Cause
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 1286

807 F.2d 1286

James J. CARRAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. Mennen WILLIAMS, Chief Justice; Thomas G. Kavanagh Justice; James L. Ryan, Justice; James H. Brickley Justice; Michael F. Cavanagh, Justice; Charles L. Levin Justice; Patricia L. Boyle, Justice; of the Supreme Court of Michigan in their official capacity; Daniel Walsh, State Court Administrator in his official capacity; Joseph R McDonald, Circuit Judge, in his individual and official capacity; Eugene C. Penzien, Circuit Judge, in his individual and official capacity; James Andrzejewski; David F. Oeming, Jr.; Robert D. Kinsey, Jr.; Stan Baker; Ray Priddy; Ann Priddy; Fred Hayes; Ron Stevens d/b/a Stevens Farm; Thomas Chisolm; and Vida Randall, Defendants- Appellees.

No. 85-1331.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Cause Argued Aug. 12, 1986.

Decided Dec. 15, 1986.

James J. Carras, pro se, Bay City, Mich.

Leopold P. Borrello, Jill K. Smith (argued), Saginaw, Mich., George H. Weller (argued), Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., David F. Oeming, Jr. (argued), Saginaw, Mich., Randall L. Frank (argued), Bay City, Mich., Gene A. Farber, Detroit, Mich., David M. Stewart (argued), Flint, Mich., for defendants-appellees.

Before: JONES and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges; and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant James J. Carras appeals from the district court order dismissing his action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq. (1982). Carras argues that the district court improperly invoked the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution to bar his claims for injunctive relief against the Michigan Supreme Court Justices and the Court Administrator. He further contends that the court erred in abstaining from his remaining claims for injunctive and monetary relief on the authority of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and its progeny. We find that Carras' attempt to enjoin the supreme court justices and the court administrator, state trial judges Penzien and McDonald, and attorney Oeming from participating in the challenged state court action has become moot, and that the district court erred in abstaining from Carras' additional claims for injunctive relief and damages. Accordingly, we vacate in part, reverse in part, and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings.

In March of 1980, James J. Carras, a Michigan attorney who also owns thoroughbred racing horses, was named defendant by Hull & Smith Horse Vans, Inc. ("Hull & Smith") in a Michigan state court suit. Hull & Smith alleged that Carras had breached their contract for the transportation of Carras' horses. Carras denied that any such contract existed and further defended the action on the ground that Hull & Smith's failure to comply with the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act precluded recovery. Carras' Interstate Commerce Act defense was rejected, and Hull & Smith obtained a judgment against Carras of $20,797.85. This judgment was affirmed on appeal, and Carras' subsequent petition to the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari was denied. Hull & Smith Horse Vans, Inc. v. Carras, 144 Mich.App. 712, 376 N.W.2d 392 (1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 91, 93 L.Ed.2d 43 (1986).

Although the state court suit appeared to be and was tried as an ordinary contract action, Carras asserted in this pro se action before the federal district court that the state court suit was merely the culmination of a widespread conspiracy perpetrated against him by individuals in the horse racing business and members of the Michigan Bar and Judiciary. According to Carras, the individuals in the horse racing industry ¹ attempted to destroy Carras' horse racing business and reputation through various means, ² and finally manipulated Carras into defending the Hull & Smith state court action. ³ Hull & Smith's attorney, David P. Oeming, Jr., and the trial judges in the state court action, Eugene C. Penzien and Joseph R. McDonald, allegedly denied Carras an impartial tribunal in furtherance of the conspiracy. ⁴ Finally, the conspiracy was perfected by the participation of the Michigan Supreme Court Justices and the Court Administrator, who allegedly refused to intervene in the trial court proceedings in complete disregard of the "overwhelming" evidence which Carras produced to show that the trial judges were prejudiced against him.

In the district court, Carras contended that the alleged conspiracy deprived him of his property and liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and abridged privileges and immunities guaranteed to him by that amendment. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Sec. 1. Pursuant to section 1983, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982), Carras sought to enjoin the Michigan Supreme Court Justices and the Court Administrator, state trial judges Penzien and McDonald, and attorney Oeming from future participation in the state court action. Carras also sought additional injunctive relief and damages under section 1983 and under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq. (1982). Specifically, under section 1983, Carras sought to enjoin Ray and Ann Priddy from proceeding against him before the California Horse Racing Board. Pursuant to his RICO claim, Carras sought to enjoin several defendants from: interfering with his business relationships; attempting to obtain money from Carras through harassment; and inducing any other person to harass Carass or to institute legal actions against Carras. Finally, his damage claims under section 1983 and RICO sought recovery from all defendants except the Michigan Supreme Court Justices and the Court Administrator for injuries resulting from the alleged conspiracy, including injuries allegedly arising both from the defendants' prosecution of the state court action and from their transactions with Carras in the horse racing business.

The district court dismissed Carras' suit, holding that the Eleventh Amendment barred the action against the Michigan Supreme Court Justices and the Court Administrator, and that Younger and its progeny required abstention from the case against the remaining defendants. This appeal ensued. Our review will employ a three-part analysis, considering separately Carras' attempt to enjoin several defendants from participating in the state court action, his requests for additional injunctive relief, and his claims for damages.

We find that Carras' attempt to enjoin participation in the state court proceedings has become moot. ⁵ "[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 1950, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). Mootness results when events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief. See Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498, 514, 31 S.Ct. 279, 283, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911); 6A J. Moore, J. Lucas & G. Grotheer, Moore's Federal Practice p 57.13, at 57-123 to 57-127 & n. 11 (1986) (citing cases). Because the requested relief will not be forthcoming, the plaintiff will no longer have an interest in the outcome which justifies a federal court's decision on the underlying factual and legal issues. Cf. County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 1383, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979). Indeed, if a case becomes moot, it does not satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III, U.S. Const. art. III, Sec. 2, and the federal courts are powerless to decide it. See SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403, 407, 92 S.Ct. 577, 579, 30 L.Ed.2d 560 (1972); United States v. City of Detroit, 720 F.2d 443, 448 (6th Cir.1983).

In the instant case, Carras sought to enjoin the Michigan Supreme Court Justices and the Court Administrator, state trial judges Penzien and McDonald, and attorney Oeming from participating in the pending state court action. When the United States Supreme Court denied Carras' petition for writ of certiorari, however, the Michigan trial court judgment became final and the state court suit was terminated. Carras v. Hull & Smith Horse Vans, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 91, 93 L.Ed.2d 43 (1986). Because there is no longer a state court proceeding from which to enjoin the named defendants' participation, the relief which Carras has sought can no longer be given by a federal court. Therefore, this aspect of Carras' suit has become moot. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order dismissing, on Eleventh Amendment grounds, Carras' claims against the Michigan Supreme Court Justices and the Court Administrator. Likewise, we vacate the court's order insofar as it invoked Younger abstention to dismiss Carras' claims which sought to enjoin state trial judges Penzien and McDonald and attorney Oeming from future participation in the state court proceeding. These claims are remanded to the district court with directions that they be dismissed as moot. ⁶ See Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 299 U.S. 259, 267-68, 57 S.Ct. 202, 205, 81 L.Ed. 178 (1936) (per curiam) (appellate procedure for moot cases).

The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari does not moot Carras' remaining claims for additional injunctive relief and damages, however, because such relief is not contingent on the pendency of the state litigation. See Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 8, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1559, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978); Caldwell v. Craighead, 432 F.2d 213, 218-19 (6th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 953, 91 S.Ct. 1617, 29 L.Ed.2d 123 (1971); see also Banas v. Dempsey, 742 F.2d 277, 281 (6th Cir.1984) (dictum), aff'd sub nom. Green v. Mansour, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 423, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985). We proceed to consider, therefore, whether the...