Benson v. Powazek

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-02436
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD HUNTER BENSON, ) Case No.: 24-cv-2436-BEN-DDL ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT 13 v. ) PREJUDICE ) 14 JUDGE HARRY POWZEK; SUPERIOR ) COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 15 ) OF SAN DIEGO; BRIANNA DAVIS, ) 16 ATTORNEY; SHELBY SUTCLIFFE ) BENSON, 17 ) Defendant. ) 18 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff brings this action against Superior Court Judge Jarry Powazek, his former 22 spouse, Shelby Sutcliffe Benson, and her counsel, Brianna Davis, for violations of 23 constitutional and statutory rights during family court proceedings in the Superior Court 24 of California, County of San Diego.1 Plaintiff alleges that during the family court 25 proceedings Defendants denied him due process, failed to accommodate his disability 26 under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and engaged in improper ex parte 27 28 1 communications. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees 2 under federal civil rights laws and the ADA. This action relates to two pending cases 3 arising from the same factual circumstances: Benson v. Torres, No. 3:24-cv-02424-BEN- 4 DDL and Benson v. Stackhouse, No. 3:24-cv-02428-BEN-DDL.2 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Younger abstention is grounded in a “longstanding public policy against federal 7 interference with state court proceedings.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971). 8 Under Younger, federal courts “[preserve] respect for state functions” such that the 9 national government protects federal rights and interests in a way that will not “unduly 10 interfere with the legitimate activities of the state[].’” Id. at 44. Pursuant to Younger, a 11 federal court may, and usually should, abstain from hearing a case in which a state civil 12 action is proceeding and where the federal action implicates a state’s interest in enforcing 13 the orders and judgments of its courts. Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1043 14 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp Ins. Fund, Hoye v. City 15 of Oakland, 653 F.3d 835, 843 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 16 A “five-prong test” is used to determine “whether a civil case Younger-eligible.” 17 Seattle Pac. Univ. v. Ferguson, 104 F. 4th 50, 63 (9th Cir. 2024). Younger abstention is 18 appropriate when the state proceedings: (1) are ongoing; (2) are quasi-criminal 19 enforcement actions or involve a state’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of 20 its courts; (3) implicate an implicate an important state interest; (4) allow litigants to raise 21 federal constitutional challenges; and (5) when the federal action would have the practical 22 effect of enjoining the state proceedings. Yelp Inc. v. Paxton, 137 F. 4th 944, 951 (9th 23 Cir. 2025) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, 754 F.3d at 759).3 24 /// 25

26 2 Plaintiff’s claims for money damages are frivolous or fanciful and implausible. 27 3 There are exceptions for a “showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief,” and the exceptions are narrow. Yelp, Inc., 137 F.4th at 951 (quoting 28 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 The Complaint asserts claims for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief 3 arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 121; the Bane Act; and California Civil 4 Code § 52.1. (see ECF No. 1 at 1). 5 Plaintiff’s claims fall squarely within the bounds of the Younger abstention 6 doctrine. They are subject to the doctrine for the following reasons: (1) the divorce case 7 is ongoing in state court;4 (2) the Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief from a federal court 8 that would interfere with the enforcement of a state court order; (3) divorce and family 9 law proceedings are considered important state interests; and (4) the state trial and 10 appellate courts provide an adequate forum to hear constitutional claims. 11 As to the fifth prong, the fifth prong is met when the requested relief seeks to 12 enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceedings. Yelp 13 Inc., 137 F.4th at 951. This federal action would have a practical effect of enjoining the 14 underlying state court proceeding because if injunctive relief were obtained, it would 15 undermine the ongoing divorce and child custody case. Indeed, that is precisely the effect 16 the Plaintiff intends to achieve. Thus, the fifth prong is also easily met. Lastly, none of 17 the Younger exceptions apply here. 18 Therefore, this Court abstains from exercising jurisdiction over this case. Moore v. 19 Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979) (district court should have abstained and dismissed where 20 state court family relations case was proceeding); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 21 979 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (Younger principles counsel federal court abstention). 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 4 “[T]he date for determining whether Younger applies is the date the federal action is filed.” Matrai v. Hiramoto, No. 21-15084, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33610, 2021 WL 5276021, at *2 (9th Cir. 2021) 28 IV. CONCLUSION 2 The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. All pending motions are 3 || DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. lyin, > || DATED: August 27, 2025 6 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 4 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _4-