Dr. Linda Edelin v. State of Maine

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-08869
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-08869-AH-MARx Date November 24, 2025 Title Dr. Linda Edelin v. State of Maine

Present: The Honorable Anne Hwang, United States District Judge

Yolanda Skipper Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHy ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED UNDER YOUNGER DOCTRINE OR SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY On September 17, Plaintiff Dr. Linda Edelin (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Defendant State of Maine (“Defendant”). Dkt. Nos. 1, 3. On September 19, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion and ordered her to show cause why this action should not be dismissed under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (the “Order”). Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Order. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed under the doctrines of Younger abstention or sovereign immunity. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff was charged in the State of Maine with one count of theft by deception and five counts of aggravated forgery. Dkt. No. 1 at 16.! Plaintiff brought an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and stay of state

The Court references the ECF page number, not the page number provided on the pleading. Page 1 of 3 CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk YS

proceedings on September 17. She alleged constitutional violations of her Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 6. She requested that the Court issue a temporary restraining order staying all proceedings in her criminal case, including a September 18 omnibus hearing, jury selection scheduled for September 22, and a trial set for October 6-8. The Court denied Plaintiff’s emergency motion and issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed under the Younger doctrine. Since the issuance of the Order, Plaintiff has filed several entries with the Court, none of which has been responsive to the Order. See Dkt. Nos. 11-13, 15. On October 20, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against Defendant. II. LEGAL STANDARD A. Younger Abstention Under Younger, federal courts must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over cases that would interfere with pending state court proceedings. 401 U.S. at 43-44. The Younger doctrine reflects “a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.” Middlesex Cty. Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). “However, even if Younger abstention is appropriate, federal courts do not invoke it if there is a ‘showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.’” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 766-67 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting id. at 435). B. Sovereign Immunity The Eleventh Amendment states: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. “[U]nder the eleventh amendment a state or its agencies cannot be sued in federal court without its consent.” O’Connor v. State of Nev., 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978)). III. DISCUSSION Despite the Order requiring a response from Plaintiff within 14 days—and more than 60 days elapsing since issuance of the Order—the Court has refrained from dismissing the case. Still, to date, none of Plaintiff’s filings entered since issuance of the Order has addressed Younger. Nonetheless, the Court will allow Plaintiff one more chance to address the Younger issue.

Additionally, because Defendant is a U.S. state, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed under the doctrines of Younger abstention and sovereign immunity. Plaintiff’s failure to respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in dismissal of the action without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.