Cheri Nicole Harris v. Dr. Jason Eric Garber, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01141
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:24-cv-01141-JAD-EJY Cheri Nicole Harris, 4 Plaintiff Order Overruling Objections, Adopting 5 v. Report and Recommendation in Part, and Staying Case 6 Dr. Jason Eric Garber, et al., [ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23] 7 Defendants

8 Pro se plaintiff Cheri Nicole Harris sues several doctors, doctor’s offices, and Nevada 9 state entities for harms she has allegedly suffered while seeking workers’ compensation benefits 10 after an on-the-job injury in 2020. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing Harris’s case 11 under the Younger abstention doctrine because, in a recent filing, Harris averred that she has 12 several state-court and administrative cases already pending on this issue. Harris objects, 13 arguing that her case “presents extraordinary circumstances that render Younger abstention 14 inapplicable.”1 I overrule Harris’s objections and adopt the magistrate judge’s finding that 15 Younger abstention applies because Harris hasn’t shown that the state courts are incapable of 16 handling her claims. But I do not adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation that this case be 17 dismissed. Because Harris seeks only monetary damages, the proper course of action is to stay 18 her case until all of her state cases have concluded through appeal. 19 Discussion 20 The comity-based abstention doctrine developed in the Supreme Court case of Younger v. 21 Harris prevents federal courts from interfering in pending state-court proceedings, even if there 22 is an allegation of a constitutional violation, unless there is an extraordinary circumstance that 23

1 ECF No. 23 at 6. 1 creates a threat of irreparable injury that cannot be eliminated through proper motion practice in 2 the state-court case.2 The Younger abstention doctrine “reflects the strong federal policy against 3 federal interference with state judicial proceedings.”3 And “minimal respect for the state 4 processes . . . precludes any presumption that the state courts will not safeguard federal 5 constitutional rights.”4 The Ninth Circuit has articulated “a four-part test to determine when

6 Younger requires” a federal court to abstain: “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there 7 is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; 8 (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; 9 and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing 10 state judicial proceeding.”5 11 All four of these factors are satisfied here. Harris has explained that she has several 12 cases, writs, and appeals pending in state court or before state administrative agencies.6 And 13 issues related to Nevada’s workers’ compensation system implicate important state interests.7 14 There is no indication in the record that Harris cannot raise her constitutional challenges in one

15 of the many proceedings that she has pending in state court, and I apply the presumption that the 16 state court would consider those challenges and safeguard federal rights. Finally, Harris asks for 17 18

19 2 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). 20 3 Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc. v. Mendoza, 139 F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1998). 4 Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). 21 5 Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 22 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018)). 6 See ECF No. 22 at 1. Harris doesn’t dispute that she has actions pending in state court. 23 7 Id. at 2. Harris also doesn’t object to the magistrate judge’s finding that the workers compensation system is an important state interest. 1 relief that would essentially equate to a ruling on her pending workers compensation claims in 2 the state proceedings. 3 Harris contends that Younger abstention is inappropriate because her case involves 4 extraordinary circumstances in which the federal court should intervene. But she offers no 5 factual allegations to support that finding. She vaguely contends that “state actors and judicial

6 forums have failed to uphold constitutional obligations and have issued deficient rulings that 7 ignored material errors,” and they have permitted state entities to suppress or alter evidence and 8 use “coercive legal maneuvers designed to avoid liability.”8 She also alleges that the state courts 9 have “refus[ed] to docket valid filings” and “neglect[ed] [their] legal obligation to investigate 10 fraud and due process violations.”9 But Harris has not alleged any facts showing that the state 11 court has abdicated its ability to right constitutional wrongs in her case. And even if she believes 12 that the trial court or state administrative agency will not address her concerns, the proper course 13 of action is to challenge those rulings through the state-court appellate process, not to turn to 14 federal court.10 So I find that Younger abstention is appropriate in this case.

15 But I do not adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation that this case be dismissed. 16 The Younger abstention doctrine generally requires the federal court to dismiss a plaintiff’s 17 claims for injunctive or declaratory relief.11 But if the plaintiff seeks monetary damages related 18 to conduct that took place in the state-court proceeding, that portion of the federal case must 19 8 ECF No. 23 at 8. 20 9 Id. 21 10 Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The Supreme Court has held that Younger abstention applies to prevent federal intervention in a state judicial proceeding 22 in which a losing litigant has not exhausted his state appellate remedies.”); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 969 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[P]roceedings are deemed on-going for 23 purposes of Younger abstention until state appellate review is completed . . . .”). 11 Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 981. 1||merely be stayed until the state case concludes.'? Harris’s complaint seeks only compensatory general damages, so the proper course of action is to stay her case rather than dismiss it. Once Harris’s state-court cases have concluded through appeal, she can file a motion to lift this 4|| stay so that this case can move forward. 5 Conclusion 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Cheri Nicole Harris’s objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 23] is OVERRULED. The report and 8]| recommendation [ECF No. 22] is ADOPTED in part. This case is STAYED pending the 9]| resolution of the underlying state-court and administrative proceedings. The Clerk of Court is 10|| directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THIS CASE. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Harris’s motion to extend time to proceed [ECF No. 12||21] is DENIED as moot. 13 LIL □ US. mah A. Dorsey 14 Decémber 12, 2025 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Id.