green
Positive treatment
published
Quoted verbatim 6×
57.9 score
Quick Summary
Federal courts must abstain from hearing section 1983 claims for damages when the plaintiff can adequately litigate the underlying constitutional claim within ongoing state criminal proceedings.
A plaintiff filed a federal civil rights action seeking declaratory relief and damages, alleging that a delay in appointing counsel violated his Sixth Amendment rights during an ongoing state criminal prosecution. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court applies the Younger abstention doctrine, which bars federal courts from enjoining state criminal prosecutions that have already begun, such as when an indictment has been returned. The court determines that abstention is appropriate because the plaintiff can adequately litigate his constitutional claim within the ongoing state proceedings and federal intervention would cause substantial disruption and friction between the state and federal systems. The court reverses the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with the abstention ruling.
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Cited for
At page 1449 Barring federal relief during ongoing state criminal prosecution84 citing casesWhen a 21 state criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment 22 action” as well as a section 1983 action for declaratory relief and damages “where such an action 23 would have a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings
- Joshua Robertson v. John Latorraca Corr. Facility, No. 1:24-cv-00009 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2026).(When a 21 state criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment 22 action” as well as a section 1983 action for declaratory relief and damages “where such an action 23 would have a…)
- Delgadillo v. Fresno Police Dep't, No. 1:25-cv-00642 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2025).(When a state criminal prosecution has 6 begun the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a Section 1983 7 action for damages “where such an action would have a substantially disruptive eff…)
- (PC) McLane v. Tollett, No. 2:23-cv-02740 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2024).(When a state criminal prosecution has begun the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for damages “where such an action would have 24 a substantially disruptive effe…)
- (PC) Lute v. Silva, No. 1:20-cv-01122 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2024).(When a state 27 criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as 1 have a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings)
- (PC) McLane v. Tollett, No. 2:23-cv-02740 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024).(When a state criminal prosecution has begun the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for damages 25 “where such an action would have a substantially disruptive effe…)
- Hirt v. Jackson Cnty., No. 1:19-cv-00887, 2020 WL 3104502 (D. Or. June 11, 2020).([w]hen a state criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory action” as well as a § 1983 action for declaratory relief and damages “where such an action would have a substantially disrupt…)
- Veniale, No. 2:24-cv-01623 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 10, 2025).Younger prohibits federal courts from directly enjoining state prosecutions, 11 401 U.S. at 45, and also from substantially interfering with ongoing state prosecutions by 12 entertaining claims that seek to enforce the rights of the crimin…
- Fields v. Hill, No. 1:25-cv-00688 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2025).“Further, the Younger abstention doctrine bars 10 requests for declaratory and monetary relief for constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff’s 11 ongoing state criminal prosecution.” Id. (citing Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (…
- Griggs v. Banuelos, No. 1:25-cv-00613 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2025).“Further, the Younger abstention doctrine bars 10 requests for declaratory and monetary relief for constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff’s 11 ongoing state criminal prosecution.” Id. (citing Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (…
- Ocampo v. Avila, No. 1:24-cv-01110 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2024).“Further, the Younger abstention doctrine bars requests for declaratory and monetary relief 6 for constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff’s ongoing state criminal prosecution.” Id. (citing 7 Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9t…
Show 72 more citing cases
- DeVaughn v. Fresno Police Dept., No. 1:24-cv-00754 (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2024).“Further, the Younger abstention doctrine bars 11 requests for declaratory and monetary relief for constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff’s 12 ongoing state criminal prosecution.” Id. (citing Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (…
- Garcia v. Baskin, No. 1:23-cv-00482 (D. Idaho May 20, 2024).(abstaining from action seeking declaratory judgment and money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
- Yellen v. State of Hawaii, No. 1:23-cv-00390 (D. Haw. Apr. 2, 2024).Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- (PS) Peters v. Ervin, No. 2:23-cv-00684 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2023).(When a state criminal prosecution has 10 begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 11 action for declaratory relief and damages “where such an action would have a su…)
- Crossett v. State of Idaho, No. 1:23-cv-00389 (D. Idaho Sept. 18, 2023).(abstaining from action seeking declaratory judgment and money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
- Searles Jr v. Yakima Cnty. of Washington State, No. 1:22-cv-03176 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 28, 2023).Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- Lopez v. Maningo, No. 2:21-cv-00940 (D. Nev. Feb. 23, 2023).Mann v. Jett, 21 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- (PC) Pull v. Harbour Deputy Bailiff, No. 1:22-cv-01422 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2023).Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 12 | 1986)).
- Scott v. DA Off. of Stanislaus Cnty., No. 1:22-cv-00774 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2022).Cal. Mar. 15, 2019). 26 “Further, the Younger abstention doctrine bars requests for declaratory and monetary relief for 27 constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff's ongoing state criminal prosecution.” Id., citing 28 Mann v. Jet…
- (PC) Martin v. Gutierrez, No. 1:22-cv-00600 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2022).Cal. Mar. 15, 2019). 15 “Further, the Younger abstention doctrine bars requests for declaratory and monetary relief for 16 constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff's ongoing state criminal prosecution.” Id., citing 17 Mann v. Jet…
- Fawver v. Nye Cnty. Sheriff's Off., No. 2:22-cv-00914 (D. Nev. Aug. 17, 2022).See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971); Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- Scott v. DA Off. of Stanislaus Cnty., No. 1:22-cv-00774 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2022).Cal. Mar. 15, 2019). 25 “Further, the Younger abstention doctrine bars requests for declaratory and monetary relief for 26 constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff's ongoing state criminal prosecution.” Id., citing 27 Mann v. Jet…
- Williams v. People of the State of California, No. 1:22-cv-00032 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2022).“Further, the Younger abstention doctrine bars requests for 11 declaratory and monetary relief for constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff’s ongoing state 12 criminal prosecution.” Id., citing Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (…
- (PC) Martin v. Blea, No. 1:22-cv-00698 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2022).“Absent extraordinary circumstances, 5 interests of comity and federalism instruct federal courts to abstain from exercising our 6 jurisdiction in certain circumstances when asked to enjoin ongoing state enforcement 7 proceedings.” Page v.…
- (PC) Martin v. Blea, No. 1:22-cv-00698 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2022).“Absent extraordinary circumstances, 5 interests of comity and federalism instruct federal courts to abstain from exercising our 6 jurisdiction in certain circumstances when asked to enjoin ongoing state enforcement 7 proceedings.” Page v.…
- Brockington v. Wolfson, No. 2:22-cv-00840 (D. Nev. June 23, 2022).Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- Williams v. People of the State of California, No. 1:22-cv-00032 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2022).Cal. Mar. 15, 2019). 12 “Further, the Younger abstention doctrine bars requests for declaratory and monetary relief for 13 constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff’s ongoing state criminal prosecution.” Id., citing 14 Mann v. Jet…
- Cook v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dep't, No. 2:22-cv-00535 (D. Nev. June 10, 2022).Mann v. Jett, 10 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- Orth v. Duffy, No. 2:21-cv-01988 (D. Nev. May 18, 2022).Mann v. Jett, 16 17 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- (PS) Vicari v. Jackson, No. 2:21-cv-02117, 2022 WL 1433524 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2022). (Younger applies where claim is based on denial of right to counsel in ongoing state criminal case)
- Raulie v. Gore, No. 3:21-cv-00480 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021).See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus 28 | || Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971); Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1985) 2 ||(“When a stat…
- (PC) Acevedo v. Unknown, No. 2:21-cv-00524 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2021).(When a state criminal prosecution 25 has begun the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for damages “where such an action would have a substantially disruptive effe…)
- Duell v. Genser, No. 3:20-cv-01145 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020).Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks 25 ||injunctive relief “against the Superior Court of California” related to ongoing criminal proceedings in CD279745, see, e.g., Compl., ECF No. | at 33-34, Younger v. Harris, 401 © 37 (1971) requir…
- (PC) Gay v. Superior Court of California, No. 2:20-cv-01249 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2020).Mann v. 12 Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- Karriem v. Cellco P'ship Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00884 (D. Nev. June 29, 2020).Mann v. Jett, 8 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 The plaintiff cannot bring claims against Verizon for cooperating with law enforcement prior to 10 his arrest if the state proceeding is pending.
- Karriem v. Extended Stay Am. Inc, No. 2:20-cv-00942 (D. Nev. June 29, 2020).Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 The plaintiff cannot bring claims against the defendants for cooperating with law enforcement 10 prior to his arrest if the state proceeding is pending.
- Jerry Anderson v. On Habeas Corpus, No. 2:20-cv-04868 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2020).Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- Cooper v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dep't, No. 2:19-cv-02231 (D. Nev. Feb. 4, 2020).Mann v. Jett, 15 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- Cope v. State of Nevada, No. 2:19-cv-02094 (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2020).Mann v. Jett, 10 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- Charlotte A. Geivett v. Unknown, No. 2:19-cv-05131 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2019).Ed. 2d 669 (1971); Mann 15 v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
- Am. Consum. Publ'g Ass'n v. Margosian, 349 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).published In Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam), we cited the "substantially disruptive" rule in approving abstention from a § 1983 claim for declaratory relief and money damages.
- Davidson v. City of Bellflower, 31 F. App'x 487 (9th Cir. 2002).unpublishedMartinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 781 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam)), overruled on other grounds by Green, 255 F.3d at 1092-93 .
- Burgie v. Contra Costa Sherriff's Dep't, 2 F. App'x 786 (9th Cir. 2001).unpublished(final alteration in original)
- Miriam G. Carroll v. City of Mount Clemens, 139 F.3d 1072 (6th Cir. 1998).published See Amerson v. Iowa, 94 F.3d 510 , 513 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 696 , 136 L.Ed.2d 618 (1997); Kyricopoulos v. Town of Orleans, 967 F.2d 14 , 15 n. 1 (1st Cir.1992); Traverso v. Penn, 874 F.2d 209, 213 (4th Cir.1989…
- Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 952 F. Supp. 679 (D. Haw. 1996).published“substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings”
- Summerfield v. Holcomb, 26 F.3d 132 (9th Cir. 1994).unpublishedMann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam). 15 AFFIRMED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
- Carbone v. Zollar, 845 F. Supp. 534 (N.D. Ill. 1993).publishedCorp., 824 F.2d 567, 569 (7th Cir.1987); Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986); Doby v. Strength, 758 F.2d 1405,1406 (11th Cir.1985); Parkhurst v. Wyoming, 641 F.2d 775 , 777 (10th Cir.1981); Landrigan v. Warwick, 628 F.2d 736,…
- Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193 (1988).published
- Johnny Spain v. Ruth L. Rushen, 883 F.2d 712 (9th Cir. 1989).published
- Paul E. Bettencourt v. Bd. of Reg. in Med. of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 904 F.2d 772 (1st Cir. 1990).published
- Randy F. Williams v. State of California, 19 F.3d 1442 (9th Cir. 1994).unpublished
- Stuart H. Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California: Malcolm L. Lucas Edward Panelli Joyce Kennard Armand Arabian Marvin Baxter Ronald M. George & Dan Lungren, State Attorney Gen. & Acting Personally for His Private Appointee's Fin. Gain State Bar of California Ellen R. Peck, Emp. of the State Bar as a Claimed Judge David C. Carr, Emp. Prosecutor of State Bar Ass'n, Ralph F. Server v. Supreme Court of the State of California State Bar of California, Harold Lenard Perry v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California: Malcolm Lucas, Chief Edward Panelli Stanley Mosk Joyce Kennard Armand Arabian Marvin Baxter Ronald George & Dan Lungren Lise Perlman, Edmundo B. Espinoza v. Malcolm Lucas Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California Kathryn Mickle Stanley Mosk Joyce Kennard Armand Arabian Marvin Baxter Ronald George & Dan Lungren, State Attorney Gen., 67 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 1995).published
- Robert Simpson v. Tim Rowan, 73 F.3d 134 (7th Cir. 1995).published
- Saunders v. Flanagan, 62 F. Supp. 2d 629 (D. Conn. 1999).published
- Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of California, 67 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 1995).published
- Kramer v. Metro-Dade Corr. & Rehab. Dep't, 822 F. Supp. 1572 (S.D. Fla. 1993).published
- Welch v. Maxson, No. 3:20-cv-08107 (D. Ariz. July 7, 2020).
- Parks v. Mesa Mun. Court, No. 2:22-cv-01147 (D. Ariz. Aug. 12, 2022).
- Williams v. Arizona, State of, No. 2:23-cv-00695 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2023).
- (PC) Hunt v. Diaz, No. 1:19-cv-00504 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2020).
- (PC) Valenzuela v. Santiesteban, No. 1:20-cv-01093, 2021 WL 1845544 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2021).
- Meraz v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:21-cv-01146 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2021).
- (PC) Hatcher v. Junes, No. 2:19-cv-00793, 2021 WL 4305945 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2021).
- (PC) Johnson v. Castillo, No. 1:22-cv-00637 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2023).
- Gonzalez v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:23-cv-00208, 2023 WL 2760906 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2023).
- (PC) Martin v. Gutierrez, No. 1:22-cv-00600 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023).
- Sekerke v. City of Nat'l City, No. 3:19-cv-01360 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019).
- Sekerke v. City of Nat'l City, No. 3:19-cv-01360 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2020).
- Buckelew v. Gore, No. 3:20-cv-00585 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020).
- Duell v. Genser, No. 3:20-cv-01145 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021).
- Rosenthal v. Newsome, No. 3:21-cv-01356 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021).
- Burns v. Toth, No. 3:22-cv-00268 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2022).
- Burns v. State of Hawaii Corp., No. 1:19-cv-00518 (D. Haw. Oct. 17, 2019).
- McCoy v. Sequeira, No. 1:20-cv-00384, 2020 WL 5604031 (D. Haw. Sept. 18, 2020).
- Willis v. Sequeira, No. 1:20-cv-00386 (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2021).
- Pitts v. Harrington, No. 1:21-cv-00249 (D. Haw. Dec. 13, 2021).
- Warner v. State of Montana, No. 9:19-cv-00103 (D. Mont. Mar. 24, 2020).
- Smith v. Tacoma Police Dep't, No. 3:21-cv-05624 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 1, 2021).
- Jeffrey-Steven of the House of Jarrett v. State of Hawaii, No. 1:24-cv-00040 (D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2024).
- Steelman v. Warshaw, No. 3:24-cv-08205 (D. Ariz. Apr. 17, 2025).
- Thomas, No. 2:25-cv-04546 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2026).
- Lebbos v. Judges of the Superior Court, 883 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1989).published
applying Younger to federal § 1983 damages claims pending disposition of criminal prosecution in state court
- Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 1997).published (applying Younger to federal § 1983 damages claims pending disposition of criminal prosecution in state court)
- Phillip G. Martinez v. Newport Beach City Newport Beach Pd M. McDermott Craig Robison, 125 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 1997).published (applying Younger to federal § 1983 damages claims pending disposition of criminal prosecution in state court)
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David Allen MANN, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
Rita JETT, Ricki MacEy, and County of Pima Arizona, Defendants/Appellees
v.
Rita JETT, Ricki MacEy, and County of Pima Arizona, Defendants/Appellees
85-2008.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 10, 1986.
Published opinion
David Allen Mann, Florence, Ariz., for plaintiff/ appellant., Thomas E. Dugal, Tucson, Ariz., for defendants/ appellees.
Browning, Sneed, Hug.
Cited by 113 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (2)
PER CURIAM:
Mann appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the defendants in an action for declaratory relief and money damages brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) against Pima County, Rita Jett (an attorney in the Pima County Attorney’s office), and Ricki Macey (a legal assistant in the same office) alleging denial of Mann’s sixth amendment right to counsel.
Mann contends that his sixth amendment right to counsel was abridged because although his Arizona indictment issued on July 8, 1983, and he requested counsel on April 5, 1984, counsel was not appointed to represent him until March 29, 1985. The delay in appointment of counsel was due to difficulties in extradicting Mann from California.
The Supreme Court has held that “a federal court should not enjoin a state criminal prosecution begun prior to the institution of the federal suit except in very unusual situations, where necessary to prevent immediate irreparable injury.” Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 69, 91 S.Ct. 764, 766, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L,Ed.2d 669 (1971)). It is clear that a state criminal prosecution has “begun” within the meaning of the Younger rule when, as in this case, an indictment has been returned. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 38-39, 41, 91 S.Ct. at 747, 749. When a state criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action. Samuels, 401 U.S. at 73, 91 S.Ct. at 768. While the Supreme Court has not decided whether Younger requires abstention in the context of a section 1983 damage action, see Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 339 n. 16, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 1219, n. 16, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977), several circuit courts have abstained where such an action would have had a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings. See McCurry v. Allen, 606 F.2d 795, 799 (8th Cir.1979), rev’d on other grounds, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980); Martin v. Merola, 532 F.2d 191, 194-95 (2d Cir.1976); Guerro v. Mulhearn, 498 F.2d 1249, 1251-55 (1st Cir.1974).
We conclude that abstention is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Mann can adequately litigate in the ongoing state criminal proceedings his underlying claim of unconstitutional deprivation of counsel, and “the potential for federal-state friction [resulting from federal intervention] is obvious.” Guerro, 498 F.2d at 1253.
REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.