Abstention under Younger v Harris; Sprint Commc’ns, Inc v Jacobs; Whether the underlying state proceedings were ongoing; Distinguishing Doe v University of KY

Concluding that the underlying state proceedings were not ongoing, the court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Younger. Defendant-University of Kentucky placed plaintiff-professor (Woodcock) “on administrative leave while it investigated whether his actions violated any law or university policy. During the investigation’s early stages,” he filed this suit. Considering the two-step inquiry used to determine whether Younger abstention applies, the court assumed “without deciding that a state university’s formal enforcement procedure for reviewing a professor’s alleged violations of university policy constitutes a civil enforcement proceeding akin to a criminal prosecution.” Given that assumption, there were three additional factors to consider. The court found the first, whether the underlying state proceedings are “ongoing,” was dispositive here. It noted that “the disciplinary proceedings against Woodcock remain in a preliminary, investigatory stage. There is no ongoing formal proceeding against [him], nor has the University filed a formal complaint against him.” In fact, it had “not even made a threshold determination that Woodcock violated one of its policies.” Further, its Notices of Investigation were “insufficient triggers for Younger abstention.” So far, its “investigatory steps—including temporarily reassigning Woodcock’s duties—fall short of a formalized, ongoing proceeding.” While the University relied on Doe, the court found that case “distinguishable. The plaintiff there had already gone through multiple formal Title IX hearings and had more scheduled before filing suit.” The court simply “held that those formal hearings were enough to satisfy Younger’s ongoing proceeding requirement. Here, the University is still determining whether a formal hearing will be necessary.” The court declined “to extend Doe to a new context.” Reversed and remanded for consideration of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and further proceedings.