Like Martha Stewart

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the denial of relief to a former criminal defendant who had gained notoriety dubbed as the Soccer Mom Madam

The woman who made international headlines a decade ago as the soccer mom madam, accused of running an Upper East Side call girl ring for millionaires, said she thought she was running a legitimate practice and didn’t think she was doing anything wrong.

“I actually thought it was OK. And I thought I ran a business like Martha Stewart and there was nothing wrong with that,” said Anna Gristina, in her first TV interview since pleading guilty to promoting prostitution

Even 10 years after being the focus of a global media frenzy, Gristina remains unapologetic. The suburban soccer mom originally from Scotland was charged by the Manhattan district attorney’s office with a single count of promoting prostitution, a charge that followed a multi-year investigation into her dealings with high-level clients she says she refused to name.

Holding

This appeal stems from Plaintiff-Appellant Anna Gristina’s efforts to unseal several transcripts related to her 2012 New York State criminal prosecution and conviction for promoting prostitution. Nearly ten years after Gristina pleaded guilty to this state offense, Gristina filed a series of motions before Defendant-Appellee Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over her criminal case, requesting that the state court unseal several transcripts and other materials. After Justice Merchan denied Gristina’s motion in part—but while that decision was still under review by higher state courts—Gristina filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Justice Merchan and New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg seeking declaratory and injunctive relief ordering the state court to unseal three specific transcripts.

The federal district court dismissed the suit, concluding that it was required to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because at the time Gristina brought her federal suit, the state court order denying unsealing of the transcripts was a pending matter in New York State court that involved a quintessentially judicial function. Alternatively, the district court concluded that the rule derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (“Rooker-Feldman”), prohibited it from reviewing the state court order denying unsealing because that order was a final state court judgment of which Gristina’s suit invited review and rejection. Gristina appealed. We hold that the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine.

The state court’s order denying unsealing, which was still under review by higher state courts at the time Gristina filed her federal suit, was a pending civil proceeding “uniquely in furtherance” of a state court’s ability “to perform [its] judicial functions.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 368 (1989) (“NOPSI”). Thus, Younger abstention was required. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

(Mike Frisch)