Alan Ness v. Kamala Harris

523 F. App'x 457
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 13, 2013
Docket12-16635, 12-16950
StatusUnpublished

This text of 523 F. App'x 457 (Alan Ness v. Kamala Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alan Ness v. Kamala Harris, 523 F. App'x 457 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

In No. 12-16950, Mitchell J. Stein appeals from an order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on the basis of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). District courts are required to abstain from jurisdiction and dismiss the suit under “Younger where: (1) state proceedings are ongoing [at the time the federal suit is filed]; (2) important state interests are involved; and (3) the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims in the state proceedings.” Canatella v. California, 304 F.3d 843, 850 (9th Cir.2002). The underlying Attorney General’s civil enforcement action against Stein and the State Bars assumption proceedings satisfy these criteria. See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431-35, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982). Stein has not shown that the state actions are inadequate for him to raise any constitutional or other federal claims he may have. See id. at 435-36, 102 S.Ct. 2515.

In No. 12-16635, Stein and some of his former clients appeal the denial of “a temporary restraining order and order to show cause regarding preliminary injunction.” Our disposition of the appeal from the final judgment of dismissal in No. 12-16950 renders the propriety of preliminary relief moot. See Taylor v. United States, 181 F.3d 1017, 1022 n. 9 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc); Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir.1992).

No. 12-16950 AFFIRMED; No. 12-16635 DISMISSED. 1

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. All outstanding motions for judicial notice are denied as unnecessary.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan
954 F.2d 1441 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Taylor v. United States
181 F.3d 1017 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)
Canatella v. California
304 F.3d 843 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
523 F. App'x 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alan-ness-v-kamala-harris-ca9-2013.