A good primer on federal abstention

Federal abstention doctrine is not the most exciting part of federal litigation, but it is important, as it recognizes that federal courts cannot always stick their hands in the state court cookie jars. There may be an assumption that federal law trumps state law, and that is usually true, but in some cases, we have to wait for the state courts to resolve their cases before the federal courts can take on similar issues in the same case. Got that? 

The case is Gentes v. Town of Sprague, a summary order issued on November 17. The town sued plaintiff in state court for a variety of infractions, including his alleged mishandling of public money. Plaintiff was the Business/Facilities Manager for this town in eastern Connecticut. That lawsuit was brought in state court in 2019. Plaintiff then sued the town under the First Amendment, claiming that the town went after him for speaking out on matters of public concern. So we then had two lawsuits going on at once, one in state court, one in federal court, each dealing with some overlapping issues. The federal court stayed the federal lawsuit until resolution of the state lawsuit, invoking what we call Colorado River abstention, one of the many abstention rules created by the Supreme Court in the 1970s to allow state courts to do their thing before a federal judge can take on a related issue in the same case.

The Court of Appeals (Bianco, Sack and Wesley) reverses the federal district court, and plaintiff thus does not have to wait for the state court proceeding against him to wind down before he can proceed with his constitutional claims against the town. The federal lawsuit may proceed right now because, while the federal trial court determined that staying the federal case would avoid the risk of piecemeal litigation and it did not want conflicting judgments in state and federal court, the trial court did not consider other relevant factors in the Colorado River analysis. 

Under Colorado River, we also have to consider whether (1) federal law provides the rule of decision and (2) state procedures are adequate to protect plaintiff's federal rights. Plaintiff asserts multiple constitutional claims, none of which will be litigated in state court. So that reality favors plaintiff under Colorado River. Also, even if the town proves in state court that plaintiff mismanaged public money, that would not necessarily kill of plaintiff's federal claims under the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment.  The case returns to federal court in Connecticut where plaintiff can pursue his federal claims right now.