Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Brooks v. New Hampshire, 96-1629 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-1629 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT, ET AL.1 To the extent that Brooks argues that the requirements, 1, of Younger have not been met, this court already decided that, _______, issue in its previous decision. See Brooks v. New Hampshire, ___ ______ _____________, Supreme Court, 80 F.3d 633, 638-39 (1st Cir.
USCA1 Opinion









October 10, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 96-1629

TROY E. BROOKS,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Philip T. Cobbin on brief for appellant. ________________
Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Stephen J. Judge, Senior ________________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.


____________________


____________________




















Per Curiam. Plaintiff-appellant Troy E. Brooks appeals __________

from the district court's dismissal of his case based upon

the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 _______ ______

(1971). We summarily affirm.

I. Mootness ________

Subsequent to the district court's dismissal of this

case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued its published

opinion in Petition of Troy E. Brooks, 140 N.H. 813 (1996). ___________________________

The state court held that "[t]he confidentiality provisions

of prior Supreme Court Rule 37(17)(a) and (g) were not

sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet compelling State

interests and accordingly have failed first amendment

scrutiny." The court also noted that Brooks' relevant

alleged conduct "would not run afoul of the rules as they

have been amended," and declared that it would not use its

contempt powers against Brooks pursuant to the pre-amendment

Rule 37(17)(g).

In light of this decision, we find that Brooks' federal

claims for equitable relief are moot. "Under Article III of

the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual,

ongoing cases or controversies. . . . This case-or-

controversy requirement subsists through all stages of

federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate." Lewis v. _____

Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). This court ______________________

may address mootness although neither party has raised it.



-2-













See 13A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. ___

Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure, 3533.1, pp. 226-27 ______________________________

(1984 & 1996 Supp.). "Where declaratory relief is sought,

plaintiff must show that there is a substantial controversy

over present rights of 'sufficient immediacy and reality'

requiring adjudication." Boston Teachers Union, Local 66 v. ________________________________

Edgar, 787 F.2d 12, 15-16 (1st Cir. 1986). _____

The live controversy between Brooks and the defendants

ended when the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued its

published opinion declaring that the challenged provisions of

Rule 37(17) violated the First Amendment and stating that it

would not use its contempt powers against Brooks pursuant to

the pre-amendment Rule 37(17)(g). All of the injunctive and

declaratory relief that Brooks sought in his federal

complaint was obtained as a result of the state court's

decision. Brooks states in his brief that "the post suit

amendment by defendants is subject to impinging Mr. Brooks'

rights as he is engaged in an ongoing controversy with

attorneys regarding his right as a father." Appellant's

Brief, p. 3. Those hypothetical future claims, however, are

not of sufficient "immediacy and reality" to satisfy the

case-or-controversy requirement. Boston Teachers Union, ________________________

Local 66, 787 F.2d at 15-16. ________

This case does not fall within the exception to the

mootness doctrine for voluntary cessation of allegedly



-3-













illegal conduct. "This exception is meant to prevent

defendants from defeating a plaintiff's efforts to have its

claims adjudicated simply by stopping their challenged

actions, and then resuming their 'old ways' once the case

became moot." Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, 787 F.2d at ________________________________

16. Given the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision

declaring the challenged pre-amendment provisions

unconstitutional, there is "'no reasonable expectation that

the wrong will be repeated.'" Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. _______ _______

395, 402 (1975) (citations omitted).

II. Attorney's Fees _______________

Brooks argues that the district court erred in

dismissing, rather than staying, the federal action because

it included a request for attorney's fees and costs. In

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 116 S. Ct. 1712, 1728 ___________ ___________________

(1996), the Supreme Court held that "federal courts have the

power to dismiss or remand cases based on abstention

principles only where the relief being sought is equitable or

otherwise discretionary. Because this was a damages action,

we conclude that the District Court's remand order was an

unwarranted application of the Burford doctrine." _______

Quackenbush, 116 S. Ct. at 1728. Because Brooks' federal ___________

suit was not an action for damages, and the relief it sought







-4-













"is equitable or otherwise discretionary," the abstention-

based dismissal was within the court's power. 1 1

The district court's dismissal of this case is summarily _________

affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___






































____________________

1 To the extent that Brooks argues that the requirements 1
of Younger have not been met, this court already decided that _______
issue in its previous decision. See Brooks v. New Hampshire ___ ______ _____________
Supreme Court, 80 F.3d 633, 638-39 (1st Cir. 1996). _____________

-5-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer