Knight v. Maleng

2 F. App'x 833
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 25, 2001
DocketNo. 00-35625
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 F. App'x 833 (Knight v. Maleng) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Knight v. Maleng, 2 F. App'x 833 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM2

Roger W. Knight appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which sought to enjoin a state court contempt proceeding to enforce a court order that Knight make child support payments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a denial of an injunction based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). See Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Knight’s action pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine because the state court proceedings were ongoing, implicated important state interests, and provided an adequate opportunity for Knight to litigate his federal claims. See Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc. v. Mendoza, 139 F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.1998). Because the district court properly dismissed the action pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, we do not address Knight’s remaining contentions concerning the district court’s alternative grounds for dismissal. See id.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Kerrou v. Bonifant
W.D. Washington, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 F. App'x 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-maleng-ca9-2001.