The state court next resolved (erroneously) to enforce the construed restriction bypunitive sanctions. I have stated in my orders my preliminary conclusions about thestate court post-judgment proceedings in the McPherson action, which I find, basedon the information presented in this action, acutely troubling. The Eleventh Circuit,although expressing sympathy with my view of the proceedings in state court,reversed the earlier injunction and explicitly declared the matter outside the reach of the federal injunctive power. The mandate of the circuit court of appeals persistsand, fairly construed, precludes the relief that Dandar requests. The Eleventh Circuitstated:
The District Court . . . attribute[s] “the present jurisdictional friction” to[the state court’s] failure to follow a certainly established rule that “a judge should not undertake, directly or indirectly, overtly or through asurrogate, to compel an act by another judge, especially in a different jurisdiction. (The nature of the judicial power permits a judge to order only that which the judge can accomplish through the sundry powers of the office.)” In the District Court’s view, the failure to follow this rulehas resulted in a grave injustice – [the state court’s] imposition of contempt sanctions on Dandar for failure to withdraw from the federalrepresentation when he had no power to do so following the denial of his motion to withdraw. The District Court believes that this injusticeand the “present jurisdictional friction” could have been avoided if [thestate court] had ordered Scientology to ask the District Court todisqualify Dandar in the case before it. Once again, we understand theDistrict Court’s concerns and acknowledge that its concerns arelegitimate ones. The Court fails to explain, however, how the issuespresented by these critiques are distinguishable from the other issues itacknowledges are properly pressed only upon the state judiciary that isauthorized to review [the state court’s] orders. We do not find themdistinguishable and consider it clear under the Anti-Injunction Act caselaw that a district court conviction that a state proceeding has reached or is reaching an erroneous result does not alone warrant an injunctionagainst those proceedings.
- 3 -
Case 8:09-cv-00264-SDM-EAJ Document 244 Filed 12/07/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID 3523