Traughber v. Beauchane

• Decision Date: 22 April 1985
• Docket Number: 84-5703,Nos. 84-5366,s. 84-5366
• Parties: Larry TRAUGHBER and Delores Traughber, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kenneth Edward BEAUCHANE; Kathy Lynn Beauchane; Michael W. Binkley; Thomas Boyers IV; Ann Stroud; Clerk, Circuit Court for Robertson County, Springfield, Tennessee, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 673

760 F.2d 673

53 USLW 2573

Larry TRAUGHBER and Delores Traughber, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kenneth Edward BEAUCHANE; Kathy Lynn Beauchane; Michael W.

Binkley; Thomas Boyers IV; Ann Stroud; Clerk,

Circuit Court for Robertson County,

Springfield, Tennessee,

Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 84-5366, 84-5703.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 16, 1985.

Decided April 22, 1985.

William B. Vest, argued, Hendersonville, Tenn., for plaintiffs-appellants.

John M.L. Brown, Nashville, Tenn., for defendants-appellees.

W. Bryan Brooks, Levine & Brewer, Nashville, Tenn., for A. Stroud.

W.J. Michael Cody, Atty. Gen., Michael Lee Parsons, argued, Nashville, for T. Boyers.

Before ENGEL, KRUPANSKY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges.

KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs Larry and Delores Traughber (Traughbers/appellants) appeal the district court's dismissal of their Sec. 1983 lawsuit. The district court predicated its decision on the doctrine of abstention articulated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and its progeny.

The Traughbers were engaged in the business of purchasing, selling and renting real property, including residential properties, in Robertson County, Tennessee. One of their residential tenants had been a babysitter for Kenneth and Kathy Beauchane, defendants below (Beauchanes/appellees). On February 3, 1983, the Beauchanes's daughter was injured while at the babysitter's residence.

On June 20, 1983, the Beauchanes filed a state court legal action against the Traughbers. They charged negligence by the landlords had caused their daughter's injuries and sought damages in excess of one million dollars. On the same day, the Beauchanes secured a lien lis pendens on the real property owned by the Traughbers. The Traughbers immediately filed a motion to dismiss the encumbrance on the property, and the state court scheduled a hearing on the motion for August 12, 1983.

On August 10, 1983, the Beauchanes obtained a "Writ of Ancillary Attachment" from the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Robertson County, appellant Ann Stroud (Stroud). Pursuant to the writ, the Robertson County Sheriff's Department seized all of the Traughbers's real property which was situated in the county.

On August 12, 1983, appellant Judge Thomas Boyers, IV, Judge of the Circuit Court for Robertson County (Judge Boyers), dismissed the lien lis pendens on the Traughber's real property. Judge Boyers also scheduled a subsequent hearing for September 6, 1983 on the Traughbers's motion to dissolve the prejudgment attachment and seizure of their real property. The hearing was conducted and, on October 12, 1983, Judge Boyers ordered the ancillary attachment abated as having been procured in violation of the state statute.

Because of the state rules of procedure the attachment could not be lifted until 30 days following the order of abatement. The abatement order therefore was to take effect on November 12, 1983. On November 4, 1983, the Beauchanes applied for, and Clerk Stroud issued, a second Writ of Ancillary Attachment. No bond was posted because the Beauchanes had executed a pauper's oath. The county sheriff dutifully seized the Traughbers's property a second time. This time, Judge Boyers sustained the attachment.

As a result of the ongoing seizure of their property, the Traughbers alleged that they were foreclosed from conducting their real estate business and as a result their income was reduced by 75%.

On November 30, 1983, the Traughbers instituted this Sec. 1983 action against the Beauchanes, Clerk Stroud, Judge Boyers, and Michael W. Binkley, who was the attorney the Beauchanes had engaged to obtain the lien and attachments. The complaint asserted that the attachment had prevented the Traughbers from continuing their business, from obtaining commercial credit or loans, foreclosed them from meeting their financial obligations, and had caused emotional and physical harm, all in contravention of their equal protection, due process, and fourth amendment rights as secured by the fourteenth amendment. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief including a declaration that the state's attachment statutes were facially, and as applied in this case, unconstitutional, and an order enjoining defendants from further attachments of their property thereunder.

The district court invoked the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and dismissed the complaint. There ensued this timely appeal.

It appears that this circuit has not articulated the standard to be applied by this court in reviewing decisions of abstention by district courts. The Eleventh Circuit apparently has applied an abuse of discretion standard, Forehand v. First Alabama Bank of Dotham, 727 F.2d 1033, 1036 (11th Cir.1984) (dissenting opinion), which is an arguable standard because the abstention doctrine is not constitutionally mandatory and is reflective of equity principles. The Ninth Circuit has applied a de novo review at least as to Younger abstention issues. Goldie's Bookstore v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 468 (9th Cir.1984). The Third Circuit reviews abstention dispositions de novo. See D'Iorio v. Delaware County, 592 F.2d 681 (3d Cir.1978). Although decisions by this circuit have not directly addressed the appropriate standard to be applied within this circuit, the existing decisions would imply approval of a de novo review. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan v. Baerwaldt, 726 F.2d 296 (6th Cir.1984); United States v. Anderson County, Tennessee, 705 F.2d 184 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 548, 78 L.Ed.2d 722 (1983).

Because theories of state and federal law, and expressions of federalism and comity, are so interrelated in the decision to abstain such dispositions are elevated to a level of importance dictating de novo appellate review.

In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), the Supreme Court refused to enjoin state criminal proceedings which the plaintiffs claimed had been undertaken pursuant to unconstitutional state criminal statutes. The Supreme Court

concluded that the judgment of the District Court, enjoining appellant Younger from prosecuting under these California statutes, must be reversed as a violation of the national policy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances. We express no view about the circumstances under which the federal courts may act when there is no prosecution pending in state courts at the time the federal proceeding is begun.

401 U.S. at 41, 91 S.Ct. at 749 (footnote omitted).

Younger was by its terms and analysis strictly limited to criminal settings in recognition of the extreme importance which states placed on their criminal proceedings. In Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975), reh'g denied, 421 U.S. 971, 95 S.Ct. 1969, 44 L.Ed.2d 463, the Court addressed the application of Younger to state civil proceedings.

In Huffman, the sheriff and the prosecuting attorney of Allen County, Ohio, instituted a civil action pursuant to the state nuisance statutes against a theater operating in Lima, Ohio. The pertinent state statutes provided that a facility wherein obscene films were exhibited constituted a common nuisance and, if so adjudged, could be closed for up to one year. The statute also permitted preliminary injunctive closings pending a final judgment of common nuisance status. The statute further permitted the sale of personal property used in conducting the nuisance. The state trial court in Huffman rendered judgment for the civil plaintiffs (the county's sheriff and the prosecuting attorney). The judgment also approved the seizure and sale of the personal property used in the theater's operations.

The defendant theater did not appeal that judgment through the state court system. Instead, it immediately instituted a Sec. 1983 suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which convened a three-judge panel.

The district court reached the merits of the dispute without addressing the abstention issue. Direct appeal to the Supreme Court followed.

Justice Rehnquist writing for the Court in Huffman, observed that insofar as the Younger doctrine was anchored in principles of comity and federalism the doctrine was generally applicable to civil as well as criminal proceedings. 420 U.S. at 604, 95 S.Ct. at 1208 ("[t]he component of Younger which rests upon the threat to our federal system is thus applicable to a civil proceeding such as this quite as much as it is to a criminal proceeding"). The Court then emphasized the criminal character of the underlying state action:

[W]e deal here with a state proceeding which in important respects is more akin to a criminal prosecution than are most civil cases. The State is a party to the Court of Common Pleas proceeding, and the proceeding is both in aid of and closely related to criminal statutes which prohibit the dissemination of obscene materials. Thus, an offense to the state's interest in nuisance litigation is likely to be every bit as great as it would be were this a criminal proceeding. Similarly, while in this case the District Court's injunction has not directly disrupted Ohio's criminal justice system, it has disrupted that State's efforts to protect the very interests which underlie its criminal laws and to obtain compliance with precisely the standards which are embodied in its criminal laws.

420 U.S. at 604-05, 95 S.Ct. at 1208 (citation and footnote deleted).

While expansive of Younger's scope, the Huffman Court limited the civil counterpart to Younger which it had created:

For the purposes of the case before us, however, we need make no general pronouncements upon the applicability of Younger to all civil litigation. It suffices to say that for the reasons heretofore set out, we...