Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Virginia

• Decision Date: 03 October 1996
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 95-1043-R.
• Citation: 947 F.Supp. 236
• Parties: Vern T. JORDAHL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

Page 236

947 F.Supp. 236

Vern T. JORDAHL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 95-1043-R.

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division.

October 3, 1996.

Donald Wise Huffman, Donald W. Huffman & Associates, P.C., Roanoke, VA, M. Miller Baker, Brian M. Tauscher, Matthew J. Cuccias, Carr, Goodson & Lee, P.C., Washington, DC, Craig Littleton Parshall, Fredericksburg, VA, James Bopp, Jr., Richard E. Coleson, Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, for plaintiffs Vern T. Jordahl, Mary-Beth LaRock, Virginia Leadership Council.

John Hardin Young, Falls Church, VA, Gail Starling Marshall, Rapidan, VA, Melissa Walker Robinson, Jason G. Moyers, Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore, Roanoke, VA, Jay B. Myerson, Reston, VA, Rebecca Claire Guthrie, Richmond, VA, for defendants Democratic Party of Virginia, Chester A. Roberts, Richmond City Democratic Committee.

Alice Ann Berkebile, James Walter Hopper, James S. Gilmore, III, Office of Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for intervenor-defendant Commonwealth of Virginia.

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILSON, District Judge.

This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiffs, Vern T. Jordahl, Mary-Beth LaRock, and the Virginia Leadership Council, against defendants, the Democratic Party of Virginia ("DPV"), the Richmond City Democratic Committee, and other unnamed persons, for allegedly using state statutes and judicial proceedings to suppress political speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.¹ Plaintiffs also assert various state law claims under the court's supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. DPV has moved to dismiss on various grounds.² The Commonwealth of Virginia has moved to intervene pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) to defend the constitutionality of Virginia's election laws should those laws be called into question in this suit, and the court has granted that motion. The court now concludes that the suit, in part, attempts to mount a collateral attack on state court judgments, an attack which this court lacks jurisdiction to hear; and, in part, assumes that Virginia courts will not follow the Constitution, an assumption that raises issues that are not ripe for decision and that conflicts with the essential tenets of federalism. The court accordingly dismisses plaintiffs' federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and plaintiffs' state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

I.

In 1989, Virginia held elections for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and the General Assembly. The Virginia Leadership Council ("VLC") is an unincorporated association of certain Virginia citizens, which prepared and distributed voter guides for the election, comparing the political positions taken by the major parties' candidates. Vern Jordahl is a member of the VLC. Mary-Beth LaRock is a member of the Concerned Women for America ("CWA"), which prepared and distributed similar voter guides.

In connection with the 1989 elections, DPV sought an injunction against VLC and others. The day before the election, the Circuit Court of Fairfax County enjoined them from distributing voter guides and "any other materials or publications or writings as defined in [Va.Code §] 24.1-277." The injunction was effective "until such time as the defendants [in that action could] demonstrate to the court compliance with the law."³ In a similar suit, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond enjoined VLC and a named individual three days before the election "from distributing any literature of a political nature without first identifying by name and address the person causing the literature to be distributed, and including on any literature distributed the required authorization statement."⁴

In 1993, elections were held again for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and the General Assembly. Following a similar pattern, shortly before the election the Circuit Court of Fairfax County entertained a suit to enjoin distribution of certain handbills. On October 27, 1993, the Circuit Court enjoined LaRock and others "from distributing any writing ... about candidates for any [elective] office ... without first filing a statement of organization with the [Virginia State] Board [of Elections]" and identifying on the writing "the person responsible therefore" and the registration number.⁵

Jordahl and the other plaintiffs brought this suit against DPV and the other defendants on October 2, 1995, seeking injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief. The court scheduled the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction together with a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction in a related case on October 11, 1995.⁶ At the combined hearing, the court announced that it would abstain from ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction in this suit while the parties sought dissolution of the 1989 Fairfax County injunction that remained in effect.⁷ The Fairfax County Circuit Court dissolved its injunction and dismissed proceedings in that court March 21, 1996. Also after the October hearing before this court, the Virginia General Assembly amended the pertinent provisions of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act.⁸

In the meantime, plaintiffs filed a nine-count amended complaint in this suit seeking injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief. Count One of the amended complaint alleges that various provisions of Virginia's Campaign Finance Disclosure Act, in connection with Va.Code § 8.01-620, authorizing circuit courts to grant injunctive relief, constitute a system of prior restraint in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Under Count One, plaintiffs seek to restrain DPV and others "from instituting, seeking, or procuring injunctions under color of Va.Code § 8.01-620 that restrain speech ... allegedly in violation of Va.Code §§ 24.2-908, 24.2-910, and 24.2-1014(B)(3)." Counts Two, Three, Seven, and Eight are 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for injuries allegedly caused by either the 1989 or 1993 state court injunctions. Counts Four, Five, Six, and Nine are state law claims for injuries allegedly caused by those same injunctions.

This court must first determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues presented.

II.

Defendants have moved to dismiss Count One on the grounds that there is no justiciable case or controversy. The court agrees. Count One mounts no facial challenge; rather, it claims that the statutes as applied constitute a system of prior restraint.⁹ However, in 1996 the Virginia General Assembly amended the campaign disclosure statutes plaintiffs challenge. A challenge based on the statutes in effect at the time of plaintiffs' alleged injury would be moot because those statutes no longer exist in the same form, and a challenge based on the current statutes is premature because they have not yet been applied. Because plaintiffs have suffered no "actual or threatened application" of the amended statutes to their activities, therefore, their claim is not ripe for adjudication under Article III. See Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 320, 111 S.Ct. 2331, 2338, 115 L.Ed.2d 288 (1991) (holding challenge to state regulation of political endorsement was not ripe, absent some present threat of enforcement); Woodall v. Reno, 47 F.3d 656 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 2577, 132 L.Ed.2d 827 (1995).¹⁰ Additionally, to assume that Virginia courts will apply the recently amended statutes in a way that violates the Constitution offends basic tenets of federalism.¹¹ In contrast, this court's refusal to consider plaintiffs' challenge because they have presented no justiciable case or controversy "has the advantage of permitting the state courts further opportunity to construe" the statutes. Renne, 501 U.S. at 323, 111 S.Ct. at 2339. Accordingly, the court dismisses Count One.

III.

United States District Courts lack the authority to "sit in direct review of state court decisions." D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1315 n. 16, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) (quoting Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 296, 90 S.Ct. 1739, 1747, 26 L.Ed.2d 234 (1970)). See also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). This prohibition, which has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, extends not only to constitutional claims that were presented to or adjudicated by the state court but also to those that are "inextricably intertwined" with a state judgment. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486-87, 103 S.Ct. at 1316-17. See also Guess v. Board of Medical Examiners of N.C., 967 F.2d 998, 1004 n. 2 (4th Cir.1992); Leonard v. Suthard, 927 F.2d 168, 169-170 (4th Cir.1991); Czura v. Supreme Court of S.C., 813 F.2d 644, 646 (4th Cir.1987). Moreover, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes review not only of adjudications of a state's highest court but decisions of lower state courts as well. See Port Authority Police Benevolent Ass'n v. Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J. Police Dep't, 973 F.2d 169, 177 (3d Cir.1992).

Plaintiffs bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging damages as a result of injunctions issued against them by the lower state courts of Virginia.¹² The key issue is whether the injuries alleged by the federal plaintiffs resulted from the state court judgments or whether they are independent claims. See Young v. Murphy, 90 F.3d 1225, 1231 (7th Cir.1996); Garry v. Geils, 82 F.3d 1362, 1365 (7th Cir.1996). If the state court judgment caused the plaintiffs' injuries, "lower federal courts lack jurisdiction over the claim" Kamilewicz v. Bank of Boston Corp., 92 F.3d 506, 510 (7th Cir.1996); Garry, 82 F.3d at 1365. In this case, plaintiffs claim they were injured as a result of state court injunctions — injuries caused not by the defendants but by the actions...