Laine v. County of Alameda

N.D. California

Laine v. County of Alameda

DecidedApril 19, 2022

Docket3:21-cv-09449

StatusUnknown

This text of Laine v. County of Alameda (Laine v. County of Alameda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Laine v. County of Alameda, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA LAINE, Case No. 21-cv-09449-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., STAY Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 15, 17, 36

The defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and Laine’s motion to stay is denied. Abstention is appropriate where, as here, there exists an “ongoing state judicial proceeding” that “implicate[s] important state interests,” and in which the plaintiff has the “opportunity . . . to raise constitutional challenges.” Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971) (restraining federal courts from “interfering with criminal prosecutions”). The criminal action against Laine in California state court for violating the domestic violence restraining order against him is ongoing. The State has a clear interest in enforcing such restraining orders. And nothing suggests that Laine will be unable to raise his constitutional challenges during the state proceeding. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California, 67 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Judicial review is inadequate only when state procedural law bars presentation of the federal claims.”). That Laine is currently incarcerated on separate state criminal charges does not warrant a stay. This case is therefore dismissed without prejudice under Younger. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 19, 2022 = VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA LAINE, Case No. 21-cv-09449-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., STAY Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 15, 17, 36

The defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and Laine’s motion to stay is denied. Abstention is appropriate where, as here, there exists an “ongoing state judicial proceeding” that “implicate[s] important state interests,” and in which the plaintiff has the “opportunity . . . to raise constitutional challenges.” Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971) (restraining federal courts from “interfering with criminal prosecutions”). The criminal action against Laine in California state court for violating the domestic violence restraining order against him is ongoing. The State has a clear interest in enforcing such restraining orders. And nothing suggests that Laine will be unable to raise his constitutional challenges during the state proceeding. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California, 67 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Judicial review is inadequate only when state procedural law bars presentation of the federal claims.”). That Laine is currently incarcerated on separate state criminal charges does not warrant a stay. This case is therefore dismissed without prejudice under Younger. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 19, 2022 = VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7070, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,089 Stuart H. Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California: Malcolm L. Lucas Edward Panelli Joyce Kennard Armand Arabian Marvin Baxter Ronald M. George and Dan Lungren, State Attorney General & Acting Personally for His Private Appointee's Financial Gain State Bar of California Ellen R. Peck, Employee of the State Bar as a Claimed Judge David C. Carr, Employee Prosecutor of State Bar Association, Ralph F. Server v. Supreme Court of the State of California State Bar of California, Harold Lenard Perry v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California: Malcolm Lucas, Chief Edward Panelli Stanley Mosk Joyce Kennard Armand Arabian Marvin Baxter Ronald George and Dan Lungren Lise Perlman, Edmundo B. Espinoza v. Malcolm Lucas Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California Kathryn Mickle Stanley Mosk Joyce Kennard Armand Arabian Marvin Baxter Ronald George and Dan Lungren, State Attorney General

67 F.3d 708 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Laine v. County of Alameda, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laine-v-county-of-alameda-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack