Miao v. Lacampagne

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 25-5589
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZHUO QUAN MIAO, No. 25-5589 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-06784-CRB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* DANIELLE LACAMPAGNE; AMY MIAO; SAN MATEO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN,

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.

Zhuo Quan Miao appeals pro se from the district court’s order abstaining

from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Colorado River Water Conservation

District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). We have jurisdiction under 28

* 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). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the facts of a case meet the

requirements for Colorado River abstention and for an abuse of discretion the

district court’s ultimate decision to abstain from the case. Mendocino Ry. v.

Ainsworth, 113 F.4th 1181, 1188 (9th Cir. 2024). We vacate and remand.

The district court screened Miao’s action and determined that abstention

under the Colorado River doctrine was proper in light of Miao’s concurrent state

court conservatorship proceedings. However, documents submitted for the first

time on appeal reflect that Miao’s state court conservatorship proceedings were

dismissed in 2017. See Kirkbride v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 933 F.2d 729, 734 (9th Cir.

1991) (holding that the Colorado River doctrine is inapplicable where there “is no

concurrent or pending state court proceeding”); see also Mendocino Ry., 113 F.4th

at 1188 (explaining that courts consider whether Colorado River abstention is

appropriate only “[a]fter determining there are concurrent state and federal court

proceedings involving the same matter”). Because Miao’s state court

conservatorship proceedings had concluded prior to Miao filing this action, we

vacate the district court’s abstention order and remand for further proceedings.

Miao’s motions (Docket Entry Nos. 11 and 15) to supplement the record are

granted.

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 25-5589