protect the rights of the named Plaintiffs, especially considering that Plaintiff Ward already pursued her grievances there. Moreover, as Congress has conferred concurrent jurisdiction on state courts to adjudicate Section 1983 claims, there is no concern that the state is unable to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims. Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 139 (1988). Lastly, abstention would alleviate the necessity to consider whether this matter was filed in this Court as a form of forum shopping, especially considering that a number of other related state court lawsuits have already been disposed of. The eighth factor is the only factor that weighs against abstention, as it does not appear that Plaintiffs’ allegations of widespread fraud in relation to the tabulation systems and software were before the state court. However, as discussed infra, the Court finds that claim lacks Rule 9(b) particularity and plausibility.
Moreover, when considering abstention, “proper constitutional adjudication, regard for federal-state relations, or wise judicial administration,” also inform this Court. Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 716. If the Court were to reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, it would be entirely possible today for it to reach a different legal determination, or the same conclusion but with a different analysis, than the Arizona Supreme Court reached in Ward v. Jackson. The Court cannot think of a more troubling affront to “federal-state relations” than this. See Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 716. Therefore, the Court finds that abstention of these parallel issues is appropriate and indeed necessary.
- C. Eleventh Amendment
Defendants also argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs’ demands for relief because they, as state officials who have not consented to being sued, are immune from suit. Further, they argue that no exception applies, that the relief Plaintiffs seek is not prospective, and that the claims are barred.
The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution provides:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
- 14 -
