Lacy-Curry v. Alameda County Social Services Agency

Ninth Circuit

Lacy-Curry v. Alameda County Social Services Agency

262 F. App'x 9

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 26, 2007·No. No. 06-15173·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

All of Lacy-Curry’s instant claims relate to a series of state court child dependency proceedings, some of which have concluded and some are still pending. Insofar as state proceedings are ongoing, Younger abstention requires dismissal of this action. See H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissing case under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) where parents sought “wholesale federal intérvention into an ongoing state domestic dispute” involving child custody). However, if state court proceedings have concluded, then the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes our review because Lacy-Curry is clearly a “state-court loser[ ] complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced,” and she is “inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon-Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Ind. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Lacy-Curry has waived any arguments to the contrary by failing to address these issues on appeal. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 979 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir.1992).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

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

MEMORANDUM ***

All of Lacy-Curry’s instant claims relate to a series of state court child dependency proceedings, some of which have concluded and some are still pending. Insofar as state proceedings are ongoing, Younger abstention requires dismissal of this action. See H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissing case under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) where parents sought “wholesale federal intérvention into an ongoing state domestic dispute” involving child custody). However, if state court proceedings have concluded, then the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes our review because Lacy-Curry is clearly a “state-court loser[ ] complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced,” and she is “inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon-Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Ind. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Lacy-Curry has waived any arguments to the contrary by failing to address these issues on appeal. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 979 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir.1992).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Lacy-Curry v. Alameda County Social Services Agency, 262 F. App'x 9 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

262 F. App'x 9 (Lacy-Curry v. Alameda County Social Services Agency) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related