Cestro v. Snowflake Justice Court

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 15, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-08608
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Dominick Cestro, No. CV-23-08608-PCT-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Navajo County, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay a case against him in 16 Snowflake Justice Court. (Doc. 14). It is the Court’s understanding that the case pending 17 in state court is a traffic court case. 18 The Younger abstention doctrine provides that federal courts are not to interfere with 19 pending state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). This 20 abstention doctrine applies “not only when the pending state proceedings are criminal, but 21 also when certain civil proceedings are pending, if the State’s interests in the proceeding 22 are so important that exercise of the federal judicial power would disregard the comity 23 between the States and the National Government.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 24 1, 11 (1987); see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass n, 457 U.S. 25 423, 431 (1982) (“Younger v. Harris[], and its progeny espouse a strong federal policy 26 against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent 27 extraordinary circumstances.”). 28 Applying the Younger abstention doctrine, this Court will not stay Plaintiff’s case || in Arizona state (Snowflake) justice court. 2 Additionally, as discussed in a prior order, Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. 3|| (Docs. 12, 13). Plaintiff has not yet served any Defendant named in the amended 4|| complaint. The Court also cannot issue what would amount to a preliminary injunction || without notice to the Defendants. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1). Therefore, 6|| Plaintiff must first serve the Defendants named in the amended complaint before any relief || can be obtained in this case. 8 For the foregoing reasons, 9 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to stay his state court case (Doc. 14) is || denied. 11 Dated this 15th day of March, 2024. 12 13 i C 14 James A. Teilborg 15 Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-