Smith v. County of Santa Cruz
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 DAVID R SMITH, Case No. 20-cv-00647-BLF
Plaintiff,
ORDER REQUESTING
v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY
OCTOBER 16, 2020
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.,
Defendants.
12 The Court is considering if it is required to abstain from adjudicating 1) Plaintiff David Smith’s eighth claim for a writ of mandate under Cal. Civil Code § 1094.5 against Defendants John McSpadden and the County of Santa Cruz (“the County”), and 2) Mr. Smith’s ninth claim for a writ of mandate under the same Section, to the extent it is based on the McSpadden protest hearing decision that was originally issued on February 21, 2020, under the Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in overlapping principles of equity, comity, and federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San…