California civil rights issue put on "stay" but can I do something in the meantime?

[JGRAHAM2010]

Which has been pointed out to him by the courts for essentially the same reasons pointed out to him by us.

Amazing coincidence.

State law DOES NOT come into the analysis for your civil rights lawsuit. THAT federal question can easily be answered without looking to state law. There is no intertwining.

I will respond to tranquility and all others here:

If I had no case why didn't the defendants just move the state court judge for a dismissal instead of moving for a stay?

And tranquility, do take a look at the case of Carreras v. City of Anaheim 768 F.2d 1309 to come to understand just how important it is -- in fact the rule of law in the federal courts -- that state civil rights be considered first in an analysis of a civil rights claim before a federal court (i.e. where a Plaintiff has both state and federal civil rights claims on the same primary right or issue).

 

[tranquility]

I don't have the time or inclination to research you cases. In each instance so far, the case has been irrelevant and your argument has been incoherent. Since your claim is far afield from everything I know, you have to post the specific holding for me to care.

I suppose that's one reason why Pro Per's are not generally favored. They don't have the framework of things to make a considered opinion.

Your opponents asked for a stay as it is assured based on your circumstances. (A state court will not hear the case until your appeal is done. That's one reason why any thought of a writ is wasted.) Once the appellate court comes down against you, they will submit a motion for summary judgment based on issue or claim preclusion. Cheaper, easier and then they move on.

You will lose. You will not get an accelerated hearing. Since this is so important to you and based the sincerity of your belief, I hope you don't get sanctions including the cost of your opponent's attorney fees. But, I would not take a bet you do not.

Again, and to make sure I don't mislead, SEE AN ATTORNEY who can advise further.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

I think your error was appealing a federal decision and my review of your post makes me think you are misinterpreting the Colorado River Doctrine. I think at the point of federal dismissal you should have pursued the challenge at the state level. It seems the federal court is probably telling you both cases are substantially similar and since adequate state remedies exist and it is a primarily state issue, thats where it needs to proceed. A stay of your state case was obviously coming if you filed your appeal. It almost has to be stayed.

You may say the cases dont match, but could a ruling in one affect/compete with a ruling on the same matter in either case? If the answer is yes, than you are pursing actions of the same issue in federal and state court simultaneously and one of them is going to be put aside.

There is nothing inherently quick about a writ of mandate. They'll be set for case management and every thing else just like your other proceeding. Obviously you'll be able to get an osc and hearing before a judge - but I cannot imagine any judge just haphazardly making any ruling on this.

I do not forsee a state court ordering another court to proceed in a case where the core issues are sustantially similar and is under federal appeal, where that appeal, especially if affirmed and the federal case proceeds, could affect the state case .. especially without significant process on your part.. and it certainly wont be quick. Furthermore to do so based on .. did you say 1.2? is practically vexatious. You are looking for something to do IMO.

One could very seriously consider a motion to dismiss the federal appeal as a way to move forward - depending on the rule. I believe if you dismiss it, you can still file 1 more time on it.

 

[tranquility]

A person I really like and think usually gives great answers wrote:

It seems the federal court is probably telling you both cases are substantially similar and since adequate state remedies exist and it is a primarily state issue, thats where it needs to proceed.

Sorry, no. The federal court is not saying that. If there were a federal cause of action under the law, they'd maintain jurisdiction. The court COULD NOT defer to the state simply because state remedies exist.

One could very seriously consider a motion to dismiss the federal appeal as a way to move forward - depending on the rule.

Since the OP stands to lose at the federal level, I completely agree. Yet, because I don't know all the facts and have not done actual research into the issue, I hesitate to foreclose an avenue.

I do know that a relinquishment of the federal appeal will result in a quicker state hearing.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

A person I really like and think usually gives great answers wrote:
Sorry, no. The federal court is not saying that. If there were a federal cause of action under the law, they'd maintain jurisdiction. The court COULD NOT defer to the state simply because state remedies exist.

I agree this argument may take more research than I'm willing to expend not to mention the question is likely answered right in the federal order;however, IMO the Colorado river doctrine supports a federal court doing just that - those exact factors may be weighed... which is not to be interpreted as me saying "simply because state remedies.."'; which I didnt say. Those are colorado river doctrine factors, which the op brought up.

I do know that a relinquishment of the federal appeal will result in a quicker state hearing.

Its my understanding that there is a stay pending federal appeal. The stay would be lifted if the federalappeal dismissed.

I dont think it would have an affect on pursuing a writ.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

Well I did decide to at least google it.. These are the factors we are discussing.
Abstention doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


* the order in which the courts assumed jurisdiction over property
* the order in which the courts assumed jurisdiction over the parties
* the relative inconvenience of the fora
* the relative progress of the two actions
* the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation
* whether federal law provides the rule of decision
* whether the state court will adequately protect the rights of all parties
* whether the federal filing was vexatious (intended to harass the other party) or reactive (in response to adverse rulings in the state court).

 

[tranquility]

What state law questions need to be determined in order to decide the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim regarding the 1st amendment rights of the OP?

Besides, it's an exceptional action, not the rule. Which factors would lead us to the state court deciding here first? Depending on how the brief was worded, the only possible factors could be "* the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation" and "* whether the state court will adequately protect the rights of all parties".

The OP made his choice as to what court should hear his claim. He's stuck with it until resolution.

As to the writ, what is the OP going to use in his demand? Forcing courts to do things they decided not to do is not going to go quick and easy and will take a great deal longer and have a far more complex argument then just having the OP wait. I mean really. Does he think he can send a brief to the...well, to who? I don't even know how you can get a writ to force a court to lift a stay. Especially when the stay is entirely appropriate for the same abstention issues.

 

[commentator]

I just wonder who would want to take golf lessons from this OP? Martial arts is crammed with would be sensei who wish to disciple students for money. They generally find it necessary to rent a facility of some sort to do so. If they could use public parks, I'm sure they would.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

What state law questions need to be determined in order to decide the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim regarding the 1st amendment rights of the OP?

I dont even know unless this guy is maybe screwing it up?

WHy dont this guy redact the order and past the dang thing as a pdf or copy paste it or whatever so we can read it. If you want a legit discusion we need to see why. Federal judges arent just bone heads in the VAST majority of the cases nor do they dump below a county superior court, even if they are bone heads. which by the way they arent. We cant REALLY discuss based on some distressed pro per barely paraphrasing the order.

So post the dang order and lets see why they did it.

 

[tranquility]

For the federal order, go to PACER. How many Long Beach 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuits involving golf do you think there are regarding a plaintiff named Graham?

I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. Are you arguing the federal court SHOULD have abstained? That the state court MUST lift the stay?

You're making this too complex and getting into the interstices of Federal Civ Pro is not going to resolve anything. Let's just go with the way it's done.

Feds had jurisdiction, the case was properly filed by the OP there and the case begun. OP lost on the federal claims which gave jurisdiction to the district court to hear the state claims. The court then declined to hear the state claims. (Dismissed without prejudice.) All of this is quite common and how it is done. The OP filed the state claims in state court and appealed the ruling in federal. The state court put a stay waiting for resolution in the federal appeal. Again, standard.

I disagreed with you when you wrote:

It seems the federal court is probably telling you both cases are substantially similar and since adequate state remedies exist and it is a primarily state issue, thats where it needs to proceed.

I said no. The federal court declined pendant jurisdiction once the federal claims were dealt with. Not a abstention doctrine, as, the court already dismissed the state claims before the OP refiled.

You don't need to see any state or federal order to know what's happening here--at least if we're talking about what happens in 99.9% of similar situations.

 

[JGRAHAM2010]

Some things I learned researching my opposition to the motion to "stay."

The Colorado River Doctrine is a federal doctrine, followed by the federal courts, and there is a DISPOSITIVE reason amongst many NON-dispositive reasons for applying the doctrine. IF the "dispositive" reason exists, the federal courts will "stay" all federal proceedings and wait for the outcome of the state court proceedings. AND WHAT IS THE "DISPOSITIVE" REASON? It is simply whether the state court proceedings will very likely resolve both the federal and state claims at the same time thereby eliminating the need to proceed in the federal court. If that "dispositive" reason to stay the FEDERAL proceedings is not evident then the FEDERAL court will look to several "non-dispositive" reasons to decide if they will stay or not stay the federal proceedings. (StevenJ_420Law's previous post states all the "non-dispositive" questions the federal court would analyze to decide to stay or not stay a FEDERAL proceeding.) In my opposition to the stay I presented to the state court judge the fact the DISPOSITIVE reason exists here, pointing out that if we resolve my state law claims NOW, rather than to "stay" the state court action, that we would very likely resolve the federal claims -- which should be obvious. Regardless, the state court judge stayed the state court action to allow the federal appeal to resolve. That stay order stops me from giving my golf lessons, and stops me from working in a "common occupation," etc. The state court judge would be interested in the Colorado River Doctrine to anticipate what the federal courts would expect from him, I think. Given the presence of the "dispositive" factor in this case (i.e. that the resolution of the state law claims in the state court action would very likely resolve the federal claims and federal action at the same time) the state court judge would have been wise to NOT have stayed the state court action. Here, the state court judge only delayed the rendering of a decision on the very issues that will have to be resolved by one court or another at some point in time. But given that my fundamental rights under California law are at issue, and given that consumers are going to continue to be price gouged to the tune of millions of dollars over the period of time of the stay (another aspect of the case), it was certainly very "wrong" of the state court judge to have stayed the state court case as he did. The federal judge did not give a darn about me or consumers either, and threw the case back at me to take to the state court (by telling me that I have no rights, but doing so with case citations that only make me more certain of my rights).

On the question of the state court judge's decision to "stay," there is no decisional law to guide the judge as to what to do here, and he was free to rule any way he liked, to stay or not to stay, his option, but he must not abuse his discretion, of course. I think it was an abuse of discretion to ignore my fundamental rights (and the fundamental rights of others) and to ignore the fact that golf consumers are being price gouged and egregiously overcharged, and to ignore claims of government waste, etc. And if the state court judge thought my claims have no merit, he should have just said so right away, dismissing the case, noting that I am claiming rights you all likewise say I don't have. But that didn't happen. What did happen (as I see it) is that my unbelievably clearly established fundamental rights of mine are being ignored by a state court judge that is sworn to defend the constitution of California.

What good are fundamental rights if the courts won't honor them? I see this as an outrage. I personally think the state court judge should rightly have taken notice of the fact my fundamental rights under state law are being violated and tied that in with the fact that the federal judge doesn't care to honor my state law rights (carefully rendering a decision that absurdly avoids addressing any state law at all). I also think that the state court judge should have come to the obvious conclusion that he, as a state court judge, has a duty (even based on his oath) to allow me to protect my fundamental rights as quickly as possible, that my injuries from the violation of my rights can be minimized. Well, that didn't happen. And that is why I am inquiring about a petition for writ of mandate. And I cannot help but notice that where first amendment rights are at stake the California superior courts are supposed to get to the writ within 30 days(?). (Am I the only person aware of this here?)

 

[bruceleejr]

This is too funny

So basically he claims that giving golf lessons on a public golf course is essentially his only way of communicating his view point to his students.

He's claiming that golf lessons are conveying a message and thus protected under the first amendment.

Even if that were true then it would subject to reasonable time, place, manner restrictions that leave an ample alternative.

he has the option of going to a private golf course or conducting the lessons on other government property that does not interfere with the parks access. He could convey the same message to those same golf students at another public facility. Yet since it is not ideal because really he does not want to convey a message he wants to give golf lessons.

So since nobody agrees that his golf lessons are really protected speech then everyone else is wrong because he says it is protected speech.

Now the second one he's claiming that the state voluntarily built a golf course that he now depends on created a fundamental right. He is prohibited from doing so at any other golf course but state parks.

He is the only golf instructor obviously since none can exist without that state golf park right? Am I missing anything?

Just curious if I have misread the argument.

 

[tranquility]

You forgot the fact that he thinks he can get a writ of mandamus to *force* a state judge to lift the stay based on the fact the same cause or occurrence is being concurrently heard in federal court because...well, because he really needs to win.

 

[bruceleejr]

You forgot the fact that he thinks he can get a writ of mandamus to *force* a state judge to lift the stay based on the fact the same cause or occurrence is being concurrently heard in federal court because...well, because he really needs to win.

Oh yeah, that's right. He thinks he's going to get a writ because he really needs to win regardless of the merits of his case.

 

[Humusluvr]

Holy crap! I read that whole thread, and I only see a person who wants to argue and win based on whatever he can scrounge up.

Any sensible person would say - hey, go play golf on the golf course, but if you want to make money from it, either build your own facility, or do it through a private golf course. I would think the govt would have insurance issues with you teaching golf on their course - like, who pays if you or your student gets injured in you making your living. Because I'm willing to guess you would sue the federal govt again if anyone got hurt.

No lawyer would take this case without a retainer. I can't blame them. They would lose. I think that this case is SO CUT AND DRY. Make your living on your own golf course. It's not a tutor issue as you tried to fake your way into the Ed Law threads. So SHAME ON YOU. You are wasting everyone's time by trying to make an incoherent argument.

Edited to add: I didn't realize it was two separate arguments in this thread and the ed law thread. So, I apologize. But, I still think this thread is crazy.