Courthouse News Serv. v. O'Shaughnessy

1

COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, Plaintiff, v. MARYELLEN O'SHAUGHNESSY, in her official capacity as Clerk of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-2471

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

December 6, 2022

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

OPINION AND ORDER

SARAH D. MORRISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant Maryellen O'Shaughnessy's Motion to Dismiss. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff Courthouse News Service responded (Resp., ECF No. 17), and Ms. O'Shaughnessy replied (Reply, ECF No. 18). This matter is now ripe for consideration. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Courthouse News Service reports on trial and appellate court proceedings nationwide. (Compl. ¶ 18, ECF No. 1.) Ms O'Shaughnessy is the Clerk of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (“FCCCP”). (Id. ¶ 19.) She is responsible for the administration of court records at FCCCP, among other things. (Id.) In 2011, she implemented the FCCCP's electronic filing system. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 44.)

FCCCP uses its electronic filing system to publish the non-confidential civil complaints it receives. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 4.) The electronic filing system allows the public and press to view these complaints. (Id. ¶ 4.) According to FCCCP's Eighth Amended Administrative E-Filing Order issued in 2021, “[a]ll documents submitted for e-Filing shall be confidential until accepted by the Clerk.” (ECF No. 1-1.) The Clerk “accepts” a complaint only after a staff clerk reviews “the data and documents to ensure their compliance with Court rules, policies and procedures.” (Id.) After the Clerk accepts the document, it is published. (Id.)

Prior to 2011 and the implementation of the electronic filing system, FCCCP gave the press access to hard copies of newly filed complaints. (Compl. ¶ 41.) Filers would bring their complaints to the intake counter at the Clerk's office; the intake clerk would stamp the document with the date and time of receipt and place a copy on a desk for the press to review. (Id. ¶¶ 42, 43.)

In 2021, Courthouse News Service corresponded with FCCCP staff to express its concern that the electronic filing system delayed publication of new complaints and proposed a new filing method. (Id. ¶ 23.) FCCCP declined to implement the suggested changes. (Id. ¶ 27.)

On June 13, 2022, Courthouse News Service filed its Complaint against Ms. O'Shaughnessy in her official capacity, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, et seq., and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 16.) Courthouse News Service alleges that FCCCP's electronic filing system delays publication thereby restricting the press's and public's First Amendment qualified right to access new complaints. (Id. ¶ 6.) Ms. O'Shaughnessy moves to dismiss the Complaint arguing that this Court should abstain from exercising subject matter jurisdiction due to the equity, comity, and federalism considerations underpinning the Younger abstention doctrine. (Mot. to Dismiss at 3, citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).

II. ANALYSIS

This case does not involve issues of first impression. Over the last decade, Courthouse News Service filed numerous lawsuits nearly identical to the instant case. In those proceedings, it challenged the constitutionality of delayed publication systems employed by various courts around the country. Oftentimes, the defendants in those cases filed motions to dismiss on abstention grounds, as Ms. O'Shaughnessy did in the instant case. Most courts denied the motions to dismiss. See generally Courthouse News Serv. v. N.M. Admin. Off. of the Cts., No. 21-2135, 2022 WL 17171402 (10th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022); Courthouse News Serv. v. Parikh, No. 1:21-cv-00197, 2022 WL 4368172 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2022) (Barrett, J.); Courthouse News Serv. v. Gilmer, 48 F.4th 908 (8th Cir. 2022); Courthouse News Serv. v. Forman, No. 4:22cv106, 2022 WL 1405907 (N.D. Fla. May 4, 2022); Courthouse News Serv. v. Omundson, No. 1:21-cv-00305, 2022 WL 1125357 (D. Idaho Apr. 14, 2022); Courthouse News Serv. v. Price, No. 1:20-cv-1260, 2021 WL 5567748 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 6276311 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2021); Courthouse News Serv. v. Gabel, No. 2:21-cv-000132, 2021 WL 5416650 (D. Vt. Nov. 19, 2021); Courthouse News Serv. v. N.M. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 566 F.Supp.3d 1121 (D.N.M. 2021); Courthouse News Serv. v. Schaefer, 2 F.4th 318 (4th Cir. 2021); Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2020); Courthouse News Serv. v. Schaeffer, 429 F.Supp.3d 196 (E.D. Va. 2019); Courthouse News Serv. v. Tingling, No. 16 Civ. 8742, 2016 WL 8739010 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016); Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Planet I”).

Not every court, however, has agreed with the majority approach. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Courthouse News Serv. v. Brown and the Eastern District of Missouri in Courthouse News Serv. v. Gilmer granted the defendants' motions to dismiss reasoning that equity, comity, and federalism warranted a federal court's abstention from interpreting state court complaint publication policies. See generally Brown, 908 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2018); Gilmer, 543 F.Supp.3d 759 (E.D. Mo. 2021). Despite these holdings, both courts acknowledged that the cases did not satisfy the specific Younger abstention requirements. Brown, 908 F.3d at 1072 (“The situation here is not a traditional Younger scenario”); Gilmer, 543 F.Supp.3d at 768 (“the facts of case do not fit into the four abstention doctrines”). And since Ms. O'Shaughnessy filed her Motion to Dismiss, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Gilmer. See 48 F.4th at 914 (“Gilmer and Lloyd cannot point to any ‘parallel, pending state . . . proceeding,' much less one that falls within one of Younger's three categories,” “there is no risk that a decision in Courthouse News's favor would interrupt any state-court proceeding,” “abstention does not apply”). The Court agrees with Courthouse News Service's descriptor and considers Brown the “outlier.” (Resp. at 6.)

For the reasons articulated below, the Court is unpersuaded by the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in Brown; rather, it finds the majority approach persuasive and follows suit.

A. The instant case fails to satisfy the Younger abstention requirements.

Ms. O'Shaughnessy has moved to dismiss Courthouse News Service's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (Mot. to Dismiss at 1.) Ms. O'Shaughnessy argues the Court should abstain from hearing the merits of the case pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. (Id. at 1, 6.)

“ Younger abstention requires a federal court to abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings.” O'Neill v. Coughlan, 511 F.3d 638, 643 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 40-41). As the Sixth Circuit explained: “Younger abstention derives from a desire to prevent federal courts from interfering with the functions of state criminal prosecutions and to preserve equity and comity.” Doe v. Univ. of Ky., 860 F.3d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44).

The Supreme Court extended Younger to civil enforcement actions “akin to a criminal prosecution,” Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592-93, 604 (1975), and to suits challenging “the core of the administration of a State's judicial system.” Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 335 (1977). Younger abstention is limited to these “three exceptional categories” of cases: (1) “parallel, pending state criminal proceeding[s]”; (2) “state civil proceedings that are akin to criminal prosecutions”; and (3) state civil proceedings that “implicate a State's interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts.” Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72-73 (2013); see also O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 500 (1974); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 380 (1976).

Ms. O'Shaughnessy fails to assert which Younger abstention category applies and how the Younger abstention requirements are met. (See generally Mot. to Dismiss, Reply.) Rather, she argues that the underlying principles of abstention, including equity, comity, and federalism, justify this Court's dismissal of the case; she relies on Gottfried v. Medical Planning Services, Inc., in which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's abstention even though that case did not fit squarely into abstention requirements. (Mot. to Dismiss at 6-7, citing Gottfried, 142 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 1998).) The court's decision to abstain in Gottfried turned on facts distinguishable from the instant case.

In Gottfried, the Sixth Circuit applied the Pullman abstention doctrine to conclude that “a federal court should abstain when a nonparty to a state court injunction brings a First Amendment challenge to the injunction in federal court before requesting relief from the state court.” Id. at 332. This case does not involve a nonparty or a state court injunction. Additionally, Pullman abstention requires that “the case touches on a sensitive area of social policy upon which the federal courts ought not enter.” Planet 1, 750 F.3d at 783 (citation omitted). First Amendment claims, such as the one at issue here, almost never satisfy this requirement “because the guarantee of free expression is always an area of particular federal concern.” Id. at 784 (citation omitted). The applicable analysis in the instant case is the Younger abstention doctrine.

This case does not satisfy any of the three Younger abstention categories, and the Court will...