[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-2163
VICTOR DAVILA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL T. MALONEY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Victor Davila on Memorandum pro se.
Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and
Joel J. Berner, Counsel, Department of Correction, on Memorandum
of Law for appellees.
December 27, 2000
Per Curiam. Appellant Victor Davila presently is
incarcerated at M.C.I. Cedar Junction in Massachusetts. He
filed the instant civil rights action against various prison
officials. The district court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the case and appellant now appeals.
As its first reason for dismissal, the court held
that there currently was pending a class-action suit in the
Massachusetts Suffolk Superior Court which concerned
substantially the same issues appellant was raising in the
federal action and in which appellant was a class member.
Although the district court did not cite to any authority in
relying on the pending state case as a reason not to
consider appellant's claims, the Supreme Court's decision in
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States,
424 U.S. 800 (1976), covers this situation.
In Colorado River . . . the Supreme
Court listed various circumstances under
which a federal district court might
decline to exercise jurisdiction based
on the pendency of a state action
arising out of the same transaction.
The Colorado River approach was premised
upon "consideration of 'wise judicial
administration, giving regard to
conservation of judicial resources and
comprehensive disposition of
litigation.'"
Gonzalez v. Cruz, 926 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1991) (citation
omitted).
Based on the particular circumstances of this case,
we think that the deferral of federal jurisdiction under
Colorado River is warranted. The federal case is
duplicative of the state case, appellant essentially having
conceded that he is a member of the plaintiff class of
prisoners in the state suit and that the suit concerns
substantially the same issues as in the federal action. See
Congress Credit Corp. v. AJC Int'l, Inc., 42 F.3d 686, 689-
90 (1st Cir. 1994). The state court was the first to obtain
jurisdiction and the litigation there has progressed much
further. See Cruz v. Melecio, 204 F.3d 14, 24 (1st Cir.
2000). Finally, there is no question that the state court
is adequate to protect appellant's rights. Indeed,
appellant basically was asking for a deferral of federal
court jurisdiction, as per Colorado River, when he requested
a stay due to the pendency of the state court suit.
In closing, we note that, in referring to the
pending state case and opining that the issues in that case
were the same as the issues in the federal case, the
district court specifically declined to offer any views
concerning the merits of these issues. Because we agree
-3-
with the district court's conclusion regarding the nature of
the state case and because we find Colorado River
applicable, we emphasize that we, too, express no view on
the merits of appellant's claims or on the second part of
the district court's decision. In this second part, the
district court, in paragraphs labeled A through D, concluded
that if appellant were attempting to raise any claims
separate from the ones involved in the state litigation, he
had failed to state a claim. Appellant has not adequately
identified any separate claims, so we need not pass on
paragraphs A through D.
Based on the foregoing, the order dismissing
appellant's action is vacated and the case is remanded for
reinstatement and for issuance of a stay of the proceedings
pending the disposition of the prisoner-plaintiffs' case
against the defendants in the state court. The district
court is, of course, free to vacate the stay, or to issue
other orders in the event the circumstances change.
So Ordered.
-4-