In Citizens for Free Speech v. County of Alameda, published March 24, 2020, the 9th Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit based on Younger abstention, and awarding the defendant county attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. section 1988 on the ground the suit was frivolous. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with a property owner to display billboards on the property bearing political messages. The county brought an abatement proceeding before its zoning board. The plaintiff brought an earlier federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the abatement action. It failed to obtain an injunction against the county enforcing its ordinances. After the litigation ended, the county brought a new abatement proceeding. The plaintiff brought the current lawsuit, seeking injunctive and monetary relief. The district court dismissed the case and awarded the county costs and fees.
The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that Younger abstention applied. The abatement proceeding met the Younger criteria: an ongoing quasi-criminal enforcement action that implicates an important state interest and allows the litigants to raise a federal challenge. Nuisance abatement proceedings are quasi criminal, and implicate an important state interest: the county's interest in its land use ordinances and in providing a uniform procedure for resolving zoning disputes. The plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges via a petition for writ of administrative mandate. And the lawsuit would have the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing proceeding. The fee award was appropriate, in light of the district court's finding that the lawsuit was frivolous. A previous 9th Circuit case had ruled that defendants were not prevailing parties for purposes of a fee award when a case was dismissed due to Younger abstention. But a later Supreme Court case, CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. E.E.O.C. (2016) 136 S. Ct. 1642, held that a defendant need not prevail on the merits to be a prevailing party for fee purposes, so long as the plaintiff's challenge is rebuffed. That is what happened here.
Comments