Coles v. Street

Opinions of the United

2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-19-2002

Coles v. Street

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-3637

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

Recommended Citation

"Coles v. Street" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 417.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/417

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No: 01-3637

____________

MATTIE COLES; NANNIE CHAINEY; CARRIE FOSKEY; LEROY HAMPTON;

AMANDA DORSEY; LUCRETIA WILSON; ERNESTINE M. RICE; CHARLES

STEWART; SHARON STEWART, H/W; MARY A. JACKSON; VIRGINIA COX;

CASSANDRA CARTER; GERALD RENFROW; CONSTANCE RENFROW, H/W;

ALBERT F. CAMPBELL, Jr.; TERESA G. CAMPBELL, H/W; MILTON

WILLIAMS; SHERRY WILLIAMS, H/W; FRANK LEWIS; EVA LEWIS, H/W;

THOMAS MAPP; BETTY MAPP, H/W; BARDIAN PAYNE; MILTON GARRETT;

SAMUEL MATTAWAY; YVETTE MATTAWAY, H/W; HAZEL TAYLOR;

ROBERT

FORD; GWEN FORD, H/W; KERMIT BOSTIC; JERRY BOSTIC, H/W;

ANN LEE; TRINA MCLAINE; LYNNE JOHNSON; OLAITAN ODENIYI;

ADEOLA ODENIYI, H/W,

Appellants

v.

JOHN F. STREET, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA;

EDWARD J. MCLAUGHLIN, COMMISSIONER OF PHILADELPHIA

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSES AND INSPECTION;

HERBERT E. WETZEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE

REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF

PHILADELPHIA; THE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; DEPARTMENT OF LICENSES AND

INSPECTIONS OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA;

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 00-cv-06521)

District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on June 10, 2002

Before:SLOVITER, ROTH

and MCKEE Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed July 18, 2002)

O P I N I O N

ROTH, Circuit Judge

Plaintiffs appeal the District Court’s decision to abstain from exercising

jurisdiction over their claims. Plaintiffs are a group of Philadelphia residents who

reached settlement with the City to reconstruct their homes following a 1985 warlike

showdown between law enforcement and the MOVE organization. The group claims

that in an effort to avoid contractual obligations of maintenance and repair arising out of

the settlement, the City concocted an illegitimate basis for and used the threat of eminent

domain proceedings to force the group to accept $150,000 per home as compensation.

Thereby, the City would circumvent any further obligation under the settlement.

Plaintiffs claim that the City’s actions violate due process and the City’s obligation to

follow policy under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and that the City’s actions also amount to a breach

of contract and civil conspiracy under state law.

On appeal, the group argues that the District Court improperly exercised

abstention on the following bases: (1) the appellants’ claims do not arise from eminent

domain issues, (2) the District Court is unable to abstain where no state court action is

pending, (3) the state courts are unable to rule on the appellants’ constitutional claims,

and (4) Supreme Court precedent precludes abstention. We have appellate jurisdiction

because the District Court entered a final order dismissing the case. Review of the

underlying legal principles of abstention is plenary, while the District Court’s decision to

abstain is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hosp. Council of W. Pa. v. City of

Pittsburgh, 949 F.2d 83, 90 n.4 (3rd Cir. 1991). Here, we find no abuse of discretion.

First, the appellants’ claims clearly arise out of eminent domain issues. Despite

the lack of an official eminent domain proceeding, the City’s preliminary steps to

condemn the reconstructed homes pursuant to eminent domain powers give rise to these

claims. Therefore, based on the principle of comity, the District Court correctly

determined that the claims belong in state, not federal, court. See Chiropractic America

v. Lavecchia, 180 F.3d 99, 103 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 930 (1999) (quoting

Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 11 n.9 (1987)). Under questions of state law

concerning a state’s desire to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of

substantial public concern, such as eminent domain, abstention is proper. Burford v. Sun

Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943). Here, the District Court abstained to avoid disrupting

Pennsylvania’s efforts to establish a coherent policy for condemnation of property in

accord with the state Eminent Domain Code.

Second, the lack of a pending state court action creates no preclusion of

abstention. Eddystone Equipment and Rental Corp. v. Redevelopment Authority of the

County of Delaware, 1988 WL 52082 at *1 (E.D. Pa. May 17, 1988), aff’d, 862 F.2d 307

(3rd Cir. 1988). Rather, abstention is appropriate because state review is available.

Where timely and adequate state-court review is available, a federal court

sitting in equity must decline to interfere with the proceedings or orders of

state administrative agencies: (1) when there are ’difficult questions of state

law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose

importance transcends the result in the case then at bar’; or (2) where the

exercise of federal review of the question in a case and in similar cases

would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with

respect to a matter of substantial public concern.

New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 361

(1989) ("NOPSI") (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United

States, 424 U.S. 800, 814 (1976)). Essentially, federal review of these claims would

disrupt state efforts to establish a coherent policy under the administrative procedure the

state has established to address this local question. Williamson County Regional

Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 186 (1985).

Third, the state courts are fully able to adjudicate and remedy constitutional

claims. See Frempong-Atuahene v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia,

1999 WL 167726 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 1999), aff’d, 211 F.3d 1261 (3d Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that the state courts would not have fairly

adjudicated those claims had the appellants’ pursued their lawsuit in state court.

Finally, Supreme Court precedent established in Quackenbush v. All-State

Insurance Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996), is distinguishable from and not applicable to this

case. Plaintiffs assert that application of Quackenbush permits the District Court to stay

proceedings but does not permit dismissal of the case. However, the holding in

Quackenbush is limited to actions seeking common-law damages that are in federal court

by way of diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 719-22. It does not apply to the current action

seeking statutory damages in federal court by way of federal question jurisdiction.

We will, therefore, affirm the order of the District Court, dismissing this case.

TO THE CLERK:

Please file the foregoing Opinion.

By the Court,

/s/ Jane R. Roth

Circuit Judge