Robert Allen Tribble, Jr. v. Stephanie Tew , 653 F. App'x 666 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-13030 Date Filed: 06/24/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13030
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cv-81162-RLR
ROBERT ALLEN TRIBBLE, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STEPHANIE TEW,
State-Wide Assistant State Attorney, (individually and professionally),
ERIC M. JESTER,
Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) (individually and professionally),
DEPUTY ADAM FOX,
Palm Beach County (PBCSO) (individually and professionally),
DEPUTY BRAD RIGHTLER,
Palm Beach County (PBCSO) (individually and professionally),
NELSON SCHEERER, JR.,
F.D.I.E. Informant (individually and as informant for Eric M. Jester), et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 24, 2016)
Case: 15-13030 Date Filed: 06/24/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Tribble, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order applying
Younger 1 abstention doctrine to dismiss Tribble’s 18 U.S.C. § 2520 and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claims against a Florida state prosecutor, state and county law enforcement
officers, and several alleged informants. Tribble contends that his claims in this
action are not related to his pending Florida criminal case, that a stay of this action
would be more appropriate, that the criminal proceedings will not provide an
adequate alternative forum for his federal damages claims, and that he will be
irreparably harmed by dismissal because the limitations periods on his claims have
lapsed. After review,2 we reverse and remand with instructions to stay this action
pending resolution of Tribble’s pending state criminal proceedings.
Tribble challenges the conduct of prosecutors, investigators, and witnesses
in his state criminal case. He seeks relief including an injunction prohibiting the
defendants from using or publishing certain statements and the return of all
property removed by any defendant, both remedies that would affect evidence in
his state criminal case. Under these circumstances, the district court correctly
1
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971).
2
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to abstain. 31 Foster
Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th Cir. 2003). A district court may properly abstain if:
(1) there are ongoing state proceedings, (2) the proceedings implicate an important state interest,
and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity for a party to raise constitutional
challenges. Id.2
Case: 15-13030 Date Filed: 06/24/2016 Page: 3 of 4
determined that this action would at a minimum indirectly interfere with Tribble’s
state criminal proceeding. See 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1276.
The district court did not err by abstaining where Tribble brought this action
before the State of Florida charged him by information. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422
U.S. 332, 349, 95 S. Ct. 2281, 2292 (1975) (“[W]here state criminal proceedings
are begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but
before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal
court, the principles of Younger v. Harris should apply in full force.”). The district
court also did not err by abstaining in deference to a state criminal case in which
damages are unavailable. See Doby v. Strength, 758 F.2d 1405, 1406 (11th Cir.
1985) (per curiam) (reversing dismissal of a § 1983 action, but ordering the district
court to abstain from resolving the merits of the plaintiff’s claims until the state
appellate court ruled on his state conviction).
Although abstention was appropriate, the district court erred in dismissing
Tribble’s claims rather than staying this action. See Deakins v. Monaghan, 484
U.S. 193, 202, 108 S. Ct. 523, 525 (1988) (“[T]he District Court has no discretion
to dismiss rather than to stay claims for monetary relief that cannot be redressed in
the state proceeding.”). Tribble seeks money damages, which are unavailable in
his state criminal proceeding, and Tribble correctly notes that his right to seek
relief at a later date may be frustrated by the applicable statutes of limitation. See
3
Case: 15-13030 Date Filed: 06/24/2016 Page: 4 of 4
18 U.S.C. § 2520(e) (“A civil action under this section may not be commenced
later than two years after the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable
opportunity to discover the violation.”); Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1283
(11th Cir. 2003) (“Florida’s four-year statute of limitations applies to such claims
of deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.”). We therefore
reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to stay this action pending
resolution of Tribble’s pending state criminal proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
4