Smith v. County of Santa Cruz

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION DAVID R SMITH, Case No. 20-cv-00647-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUESTING 9 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY OCTOBER 16, 2020 10 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 The Court is considering if it is required to abstain from adjudicating 1) Plaintiff David Smith’s eighth claim for a writ of mandate under Cal. Civil Code § 1094.5 against Defendants John McSpadden and the County of Santa Cruz (“the County”), and 2) Mr. Smith’s ninth claim for a writ of mandate under the same Section, to the extent it is based on the McSpadden protest hearing decision that was originally issued on February 21, 2020, under the Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

19 “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in overlapping principles of equity, comity, and federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008) Federal Courts are required to abstain under Younger “if four requirements are met: (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.” Id. 27 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Defendants and Plaintiff Smith to submit a three-page There will be no additional briefing on this topic.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 || Dated: October 9, 2020 kom Lh ham tn) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 7 United States District Judge

Z 18