David Meador v. John Paulson

Eighth Circuit

David Meador v. John Paulson

385 F. App'x 613

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided July 16, 2010·No. 10-1481·Unpublished·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David Meador appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1985 action against a state prosecutor and state court judge. We conclude that the district court 1 did not abuse its discretion in electing to abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), because at the time of the court’s order, a state criminal proceeding against Meador was ongoing; the proceeding implicated the important state interest of enforcing its criminal laws; and Meador can (and did) raise his constitutional claim in that proceeding. See Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598, 602 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review); Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir.2005) (factors warranting abstention). We reject Mea-dor’s arguments that an exception to Younger applied, or that the district court improperly applied a heightened standard of review to his pro se complaint. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The HONORABLE RALPH R. ERICKSON, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

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

PER CURIAM.

David Meador appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1985 action against a state prosecutor and state court judge. We conclude that the district court 1 did not abuse its discretion in electing to abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), because at the time of the court’s order, a state criminal proceeding against Meador was ongoing; the proceeding implicated the important state interest of enforcing its criminal laws; and Meador can (and did) raise his constitutional claim in that proceeding. See Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598, 602 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review); Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir.2005) (factors warranting abstention). We reject Mea-dor’s arguments that an exception to Younger applied, or that the district court improperly applied a heightened standard of review to his pro se complaint. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The HONORABLE RALPH R. ERICKSON, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

David Meador v. John Paulson, 385 F. App'x 613 (8th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

385 F. App'x 613 (David Meador v. John Paulson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related