United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE AS BARRED
BYYOUNGER V. HARRIS, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (DOCS. 1, 6)
K. Oberto.UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Maria Olivia Rufina, Leonel Solorio, and Nancy Shaw, are
currently proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is disjointed and difficult to
comprehend, it appears to allege a warrantless search and
seizure without probable cause. (Doc. 1.)
This Action is Barred by Younger v. Harris
initial review, it was discovered that Plaintiffs’
allegations challenge a serious rules violation on which he
was found guilty. (Doc. 1.) It further appears that, as of
the filing of this action, Plaintiffs are out on bail
awaiting criminal trial as they seek production of a
“discovery pack” related to charges for which
they were apparently taken into custody. (Id.)
such, Plaintiffs’ claims are not cognizable under
§ 1983 since the information Plaintiffs seek resulted in
criminal charges in connection with ongoing criminal
proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 43-54, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971) (reaffirming the
long-standing principle that federal courts sitting in equity
cannot, absent exceptional circumstances, enjoin pending
state criminal proceedings). Under this principle, pending
civil enforcement actions are “akin to” criminal
proceedings, Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592,
604, 95 S.Ct. 1200 (1975), and to suits challenging
“the core of the administration of a State's
judicial system, ” Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S.
327, 335, 97 S.Ct. 1211 (1977).
10, 2016, an order issued giving Plaintiffs thirty days to
show cause ("OSC") why this action should not be
dismissed as barred by Younger. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiffs
have not responded to the OSC.
civil cases, Younger abstention "is appropriate
only when the state proceedings: (1) are ongoing; (2) are
quasi-criminal enforcement actions or involve a state's
interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts;
(3) implicate an important state interest; and (4) allow
litigants to raise federal challenges." See
Readylink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins.
Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758-59 (9th Cir. 2014) citing
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, _____ U.S.
_____, 134 S.Ct. 584, 593-94 (2013); Gilbertson v.
Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2004). "If
these 'threshold elements' are met, we then consider
whether the federal action would have the practical effect of
enjoining the state proceedings and whether an exception to
Younger applies." Id., citing
Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 978, 983-84. "Each
element must be satisfied, AmerisourceBergen Corp. v.
Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2007), and the date
for determining whether Younger applies is the date
the federal action is filed, Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at
969 n. 4." Id.
Complaint does not clearly state whether criminal proceedings
are pending or have been resolved. It appears that
Plaintiffs’ intent in filing this action is to gather
information relative to pending criminal charges rather than
to pursue claims under § 1983.
claims appear to seek discovery of information on pending
criminal charges. As such, this action is not cognizable
under § 1983. Younger, 401 U.S. 37.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under § 1983.
Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 21
days after being served with these Findings and
Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with
the Court. The document should be captioned
''Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations''. Plaintiff is advised that failure
to file objections within the specified time may result in
the waiver of rights ...