Nivens v. Gilchrist

• Decision Date: 11 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-1276.,05-1276.
• Citation: 444 F.3d 237
• Parties: Kenneth Scott NIVENS; Glen Lance Maners; Terri Lynn Stork, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Peter S. GILCHRIST, III, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

444 F.3d 237

Kenneth Scott NIVENS; Glen Lance Maners; Terri Lynn Stork, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Peter S. GILCHRIST, III, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-1276.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued February 1, 2006.

Decided April 11, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

ARGUED:

Aaron Edmund Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellants. Norma Smithwick Harrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF:

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILLIAMS wrote the opinion, in which Judge MOTZ and Judge KING joined.

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

Appellants Kenneth Scott Nivens, Glen Lance Maners, and Terri Lynn Stork previously brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, seeking to enjoin a pending state criminal drug prosecution against them. Appellants contended that because they had already paid North Carolina's drug tax, their prosecution would violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. In Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2003) (Nivens I), we held the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction over Appellants' case based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), in part because Appellants had failed to take advantage of pretrial avenues to raise their double jeopardy defense in their state prosecution. After our decision in Nivens I, Appellants raised their double jeopardy defense in state court, where it was denied on the merits. Appellants then returned to federal court, asking the district court to declare the North Carolina drug tax a criminal penalty, enjoin their pending state criminal trial, and award damages for pain and suffering. The district court again abstained from exercising jurisdiction over Appellants' claims and dismissed the suit with prejudice. Because the district court properly abstained under Younger, we affirm the dismissal of Appellants' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. We also affirm the dismissal of Appellants' damages claims against Appellee Peter S. Gilchrist, III, the District Attorney for the Twenty-Sixth Prosecutorial District of North Carolina, because Gilchrist is entitled to immunity in both his official and individual capacities.

I.

The relevant facts of this appeal are straightforward and not in dispute. On July 8, 2000, Appellants were arrested for violations of the North Carolina Unauthorized Substances Act because of their alleged possession and sale of the drug commonly known as ecstasy. Shortly thereafter, the North Carolina Department of Revenue issued notices of tax assessments for possession of the drugs pursuant to North Carolina's Unauthorized Substances Tax Act, N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 105-113.105-105.113.113. Within a couple of weeks, North Carolina collected $5730.00 from Nivens, which North Carolina accepted as complete satisfaction of the initial tax for all three Appellants.¹ On January 8, 2001, Stork was assessed two additional taxes in the amount of $1,081.13, which she paid in full. Maners never paid a tax.

Appellants were subsequently indicted under North Carolina law for possession, sale, delivery, and transportation of, and conspiracy to sell and deliver an unauthorized substance. A criminal trial was scheduled for the November 5, 2001, term of the Superior Court of North Carolina. On October 29, 2001, Appellants filed an action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2003) in federal district court for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stay their trial, naming Gilchrist as the sole defendant. The district court abstained under Younger and dismissed Appellants' case without prejudice. We affirmed that decision. See Nivens I, 319 F.3d at 162.

In state court, Appellants then moved to dismiss North Carolina's prosecution pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 15A-952(a) (Lexis-Nexis 2003), which provides that "[a]ny defense, objection, or request which is capable of being determined without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion." The court, however, denied Appellants' motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds because the motion conflicted with State v. Ballenger, 123 N.C.App. 179, 472 S.E.2d 572 (1996), aff'd per curiam, 345 N.C. 626, 481 S.E.2d 84 (1997), which held that the pre-1995 version of North Carolina's drug tax was not a criminal penalty.² The North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court subsequently denied Nivens's petitions for certiorari.

Appellants then returned to federal district court, where they filed the instant § 1983 action and North Carolina moved the district court to dismiss the action or abstain from exercising jurisdiction. On February 3, 2005, the district court, relying on Younger and our decision in Nivens I, entered an order dismissing Appellants' complaint "with prejudice" because the court concluded that it "lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)." (J.A. at 1426.) Appellants timely appealed, and this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 (West 1993).

II.

The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in dismissing Appellants' claims for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, and if not, whether the district court erred in doing so with prejudice. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's decision to abstain under Younger. Nivens I, 319 F.3d at 153. We first address the district court's decision to abstain with respect to Appellants' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

A.

In Younger, the Supreme Court detailed our "national policy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances." Younger, 401 U.S. at 41, 91 S.Ct. 746. As we noted in Nivens I, Younger was based on principles of equity and comity. See Nivens I, 319 F.3d at 153. As to equity, the Supreme Court explained "that courts of equity should not act, and particularly should not act to restrain a criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief." Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44, 91 S.Ct. 746. Because in a typical state criminal trial a defendant can raise his constitutional claims as a defense to prosecution, he has an adequate remedy at law. The Court addressed the comity principle by referencing the policy of "Our Federalism," which recognizes that "anxious though [the National Government] may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, [it] always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States." Id. at 44, 91 S.Ct. 746 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Younger doctrine is anchored in a "belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways." Id.

Absent a few extraordinary exceptions, Younger mandates that a federal court abstain from exercising jurisdiction and interfering in a state criminal proceeding³ if (1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding brought prior to substantial progress in the federal proceeding; that (2) implicates important, substantial, or vital state interests; and (3) provides adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982); Nivens I, 319 F.3d at 153.

The Supreme Court has recognized that a federal court may disregard Younger's mandate only where (1) "there is a showing of bad faith or harassment by state officials responsible for the prosecution"; (2) "the state law to be applied in the criminal proceeding is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions"; or (3) "other extraordinary circumstances" exist that present a threat of immediate and irreparable injury. Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124, 95 S.Ct. 1524, 44 L.Ed.2d 15 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although as a general matter, "the cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of having to defend against a criminal prosecution alone [does] not constitute irreparable injury," Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 91 S.Ct. 746 (internal quotation marks omitted), we have previously recognized that one such extraordinary circumstance may exist in the double jeopardy context, where "a portion of the constitutional protection [the Double Jeopardy Clause] affords would be irreparably lost if [claimants] were forced to endure [a] second trial before seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights at the federal level." Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 904 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc) (Gilliam III).

B.

To the extent Appellants argue that abstention was improper in this case, that argument is largely foreclosed by our decision in Nivens I, where we held "[b]ecause Appellants failed to establish any of the exceptions to Younger, . . . the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from adjudicating Appellants' double jeopardy claim." Nivens I, 319 F.3d at 162. In that case, Appellants had argued that (1) Younger was inapplicable because the North Carolina courts would plainly not afford them adequate protection and (2) abstention was improper because "a colorable claim of a double jeopardy violation [was] sufficient to establish exceptional circumstances warranting federal court intervention without any separate showing." Id. at 155, 159.

The Appellants' first Nivens I argument stemmed from their belief that North Carolina courts would not consider their claim that the post-1995 amendment drug tax was a criminal penalty because those courts had...