NCJ Number
31866
Journal
Mississippi Law Journal Volume: 47 Issue: 1 Dated: (JANUARY 1976) Pages: 143-155
Date Published
1976
Length
13 pages
Annotation
A REVIEW OF A 1975 U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION WHICH HELD THAT IN GENERAL, A FEDERAL COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED IF THE STATE INSTITUTES PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT BEGINS PROCEEDINGS OF SUBSTANCE ON THE MERITS.
Abstract
THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN RELUCTANT TO PREVENT ENFORCEMENT OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE STATUTE BY INTERFERING IN STATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS THROUGH THE GRANTING OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OR OTHERWISE. THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS WHICH PERMIT AND LIMIT THIS FEDERAL COURT INTERVENTION ARE REVIEWED. IN THE CASE IN QUESTION, HICKS V. MIRANDA, THE APPELLEES FILED SUIT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, SEEKING INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA'S OBSCENITY STATUTE AND THE RETURN OF SEIZED FILMS. A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THIS RELIEF, REJECTING THE STATE'S CONTENTION THAT THE FEDERAL ACTION SOUGHT TO INTERFERE WITH A PENDING STATE PROSECUTION AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED. THE U. S. SUPREME COURT REVERSED, CONCLUDING THAT WHEN STATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL PLAINTIFF ARE BEGUN AFTER THE FEDERAL COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED BUT BEFORE ANY PROCEEDINGS OF SUBSTANCE ON THE MERITS HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN FEDERAL COURT, THE FEDERAL COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED, ABSENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF BAD FAITH AND HARASSMENT. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THIS DECISION PLACES PROSECUTORS IN A POSITION TO CONTROL A WIDE RANGE OF FEDERAL COURT SUITS CHALLENGING THE PROPRIETY OF STATE PROSECUTORIAL ACTIONS, SINCE ONCE A PLAINTIFF FILES HIS FEDERAL ACTION, A STATE PROSECUTION CAN BE INSTITUTED TO PREEMPT THE FEDERAL ACTION. SHE CONCLUDES THAT THE COURT'S DECISION PRODUCED A LOPSIDED BALANCE OF INTERESTS WHICH MAY RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHILE HOBBLING THE ABILITY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO GRANT RELIEF. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)