Cruz v. Quichocho
Cruz v. Quichocho
Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Court on February 19, 1988, for hearing of defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a claim.
Defendant argues, in essence, that this Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction because the complaint alleges a violation of local law, as well as the alleged 42 U.S.C. §1983 action, and because there has been no showing that the Commonwealth Trial Court cannot afford an adequate remedy. Defendant cites the Court's previous decision in Attao v. Palacios, 2 C.R. 1086 (D.C.N.M.I. 1987), as controlling
The instant case is not identical to Attao in that, here, plaintiff has alleged that he was fired solely as reta/iation for exercising his constitutional right of freedom of speech. As alleged, it is not, as in Attao, merely a garden-variety breach of contract disguised as a legitimate §1983 claim.
Defendant argues for a Pullman-type abstention.
Abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule. It is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a district court to adjudicate a
Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~~s O DATED this > day of February, 1988.
[[Image here]]
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 61 S.Ct. 643 (1941)
Reference
- Full Case Name
- SILVESTRE T. CRUZ v. IGNACIO K. QUICHOCHO, MAYOR OF TINIAN, both personally and in his official capacity
- Status
- Published