Opinion
3:20-CV-869 JD
06-13-2022
THOMAS DE COLA, Plaintiff, v. STARKE COUNTY COUNCIL, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
JON E. DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE
Plaintiff Thomas De Cola, proceeding pro se, has renewed his request that the Court enjoin what Mr. De Cola claims are unconstitutional state court proceedings stemming from a state court complaint he filed before initiating this lawsuit. (DE 35.) As the Court detailed in its prior order in this case addressing largely the same request (DE 34), Mr. De Cola is litigating this case, and was litigating his state court case that has now concluded, to try to regain his seat on the Starke County Council after his fellow councilmembers voted to remove him for what they deemed to be problematic behavior. This federal case began after the state court granted the Council's motion to dismiss Mr. De Cola's state claims. Unhappy with that result, Mr. De Cola simultaneously filed an appeal of the state court's decision and this federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin any further action in the state proceedings. The Court previously decided to abstain from ruling on Mr. De Cola's request for injunctive relief based on the Colorado River doctrine and stayed this case pending the outcome of the state court proceedings. (Id.) That stay was still in place when Mr. De Cola filed his renewed motion for injunctive relief that is now pending. The Defendants responded to Mr. De Cola's renewed motion by moving to have the stay lifted and by asking the Court to deny Mr. De Cola's renewed motion. (DE 37; DE 38.)
As an initial matter, the Court agrees with the Defendants that the previously imposed stay can now be lifted. The Court's prior order stayed these federal proceedings to allow the appeal that was pending in Mr. De Cola's state case to proceed to completion. (DE 34 at 16.) The Indiana Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the dismissal of Mr. De Cola's state claims (DE 37-1 at 1-7) and the Indiana Supreme Court denied a transfer of jurisdiction after reviewing the appeals court's decision (id. at 8-9). The state proceedings have thus reached their end, and the previously imposed stay is no longer necessary. The Court will therefore lift the stay.
Having decided to lift the stay, the Court moves to consider Mr. De Cola's renewed request to enjoin the state court proceedings. The Court denies Mr. De Cola's renewed motion for three reasons. First, as discussed in the prior paragraph, the state court proceedings that Mr. De Cola objects to and wants this Court to enjoin have already concluded. (DE 37-1.) There are thus no proceedings for the Court to enjoin at this time. Second, Mr. De Cola is asking the Court for relief it cannot give. As the Court explained in its order addressing Mr. De Cola's prior request for similar injunctive relief (DE 34 at 6-7), Mr. De Cola is in effect asking the Court to act as an appellate forum for state court decisions (DE 35), which the Court cannot do. See Atlantic C.L.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970) (holding the lower federal courts “were not given any power to review directly cases from state courts”). And third, Mr. De Cola has failed to make any of the showings required to establish a meritorious request for injunctive relief. See Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush, 842 F.3d 1053, 1058 (7th Cir. 2016) (explaining the factors). Mr. De Cola will not suffer irreparable harm if his request is not granted, he cannot succeed on the merits because the merits have already been decided, as was appropriate, by the state courts (DE 37-1), he had access to the traditional legal remedies the state system provides to resolve his claims (id.), and there would be extreme prejudice to the Defendants and a serious harm to the public interest if the Court were to reverse the state court result.
For those reasons, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' motion to lift the prior pending stay in this case (DE 37) and DENIES Plaintiff Thomas De Cola's motion for injunctive relief (DE 35).
SO ORDERED.