Henson v. Hoth

• Decision Date: 14 September 1966
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 9433.
• Citation: 258 F. Supp. 33
• Parties: George A. HENSON et al., Plaintiffs, v. Harry HOTH, President of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

258 F. Supp. 33

George A. HENSON et al., Plaintiffs, v. Harry HOTH, President of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 9433.

United States District Court D. Colorado.

September 14, 1966.

Laura & James, Robert M. Laura, Colorado Springs, Colo., for plaintiffs.

F. T. Henry and Horn, Anderson & Johnson, Colorado Springs, Colo., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM E. DOYLE, District Judge.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction to restrain defendants from proceeding with condemnation proceedings authorized by the City of Colorado Springs to be brought against plaintiffs. They also seek an injunction restraining alleged trespasses of certain defendants upon land owned by plaintiff Laura. Certain of the original defendants have been dismissed by Order of this Court dated May 24, 1966. An amended complaint also has been tendered to the Court. Defendants Hoth, Biery and Dixon have moved to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no authority for this Court to enjoin the pending condemnation proceedings and that plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law for their alleged harms.

In denying plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on May 20, 1966, we made the following observations:

"1. That the plaintiffs have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law and are, therefore, not entitled to the extraordinary relief requested in their motion for preliminary injunction.

* * * * * *

"3. That a federal equity court will not entertain applications for injunction against proceedings in state courts or exert federal jurisdiction to enjoin state proceedings except where highly extraordinary conditions require such relief.

"4. The evidence affirmatively shows that the conditions complained of have existed for a number of years; that plaintiffs may assert in the District Court for Teller County, Colorado, any defenses urged here and this court must presume that plaintiffs will receive fair treatment and that the state court will proceed having due regard for the defenses of plaintiffs and due process of law."

Plaintiffs urge that different considerations govern issues relating to preliminary injunctions and requests for permanent injunctions. We recognize this distinction but even under the less demanding standards applicable to permanent injunctions the defendants fail to persuasively show that they can not receive justice in the State action. Thus we are still of the opinion that an adequate remedy is available to the plaintiffs in the state court proceedings already initiated.

A more basic question is raised by defendants' assertion that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the action. Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2283 provides as follows:

"A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."

The following comment of the reviser of Section 2283 is pertinent:

"The phrase `in aid of its jurisdiction' was added to conform to section 1651 of this title and to make clear the recognized power of the Federal courts to stay proceedings in State cases removed to the district courts."

Section 1651, referred to in the above-quoted note, establishes the authority of federal courts to issue writs in aid of their jurisdiction. The purpose of Section 2283 is to avoid conflict and friction between federal and state courts. See Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 220, 77 S.Ct. 287, 1 L.Ed. 2d 267 (1957), rehearing denied, 352 U.S. 1019, 77 S.Ct. 553, 1 L.Ed.2d 560 (1957). Defendants urge that plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of Section 2283, and that therefore this Court has no jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs rely on no statute of the United States as granting this Court authority to award the relief they seek, namely, an injunction restraining further state court action in a condemnation proceeding. Their only reliance is upon that phrase of Section 2283 granting authority to issue such an injunction to protect the Court's jurisdiction. We have noted the Reporter's comment which puts that phrase in proper perspective. As it refers only to jurisdiction which has already attached, it can not be considered an original jurisdictional grant.

It is axiomatic that courts retain a broad discretion to determine whether in particular circumstances equity jurisdiction may be invoked. This action is not a diversity of citizenship action, nor is it an action seeking to set aside a judgment already rendered by a state court. Plaintiffs are citizens of Colorado, with the exception of Wedersky; they seek to enjoin further proceedings in a pending condemnation action and to enjoin certain alleged trespasses to land—a case in which the state court has not even had an opportunity to demonstrate competence and fairness.

Plaintiffs'...