Goddard v. County of Contra Costa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 25-2205
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS JOSEPH GODDARD, No. 25-2205 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-02910-CRB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; TERRI A. MOCKER, Judge; MICHELLE DAWSON; MICHAEL LEPIE; BROWN, Deputy District Attorney; LUCY GONZALEZ; CLIFTON HUFFMASTER; TERI BRANCO; ANDREW ADAMS, Deputy Attorney General; NICK BILLINGS; SIERRA DUGAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2025**

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thomas Joseph Goddard appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing the declaratory and injunctive relief claims and staying the damages

claims in Goddard’s action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with

his ongoing state criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.

2021) (abstention determination under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971));

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Goddard’s claims for declaratory and

injunctive relief and stayed Goddard’s claims for damages under the Younger

abstention doctrine because Goddard’s state court criminal action was ongoing, the

proceedings implicate important state interests, there was an adequate opportunity

for Goddard to litigate his claims in those proceedings, and the relief requested

would enjoin or have the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state

proceedings. See Bean, 986 F.3d at 1133 (setting forth requirements for Younger

abstention); Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2019)

(explaining that, when abstaining under Younger, the district court should dismiss

claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and stay claims for damages pending

resolution of the state court proceedings). Goddard also failed to show that an

exception to Younger applies. See Bean, 986 F.3d at 1133 (“[F]ederal courts do not

2 25-2205 invoke [Younger] if there is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other

extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.” (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also id. at 1132 (“We conduct the

Younger analysis in light of the facts and circumstances existing at the time the

federal action was filed.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

To the extent Goddard appeals the district court’s denial of preliminary

injunctive relief, the appeal is moot. See Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v.

Owen, 873 F.3d 716, 730-31 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that if a case is properly

dismissed on Younger grounds, there is no need to reach the merits of a

preliminary injunction denial); Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d

1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that, when underlying claims have been

decided, the reversal of a denial of a preliminary injunction would have no

practical consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 25-2205