SALA v. SOMERSET COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

Opinion

INT HEU NITESDT ATEDSI STRICCOTU RT FORT HEW ESTERDNI STRIOCFPT E NNSYLVANIA SHESAA LAe,at l ., ) ) Plaintiffs,) ) vs. ) CivAiclt Nioo3.n: 25-156 ) JudSgtee phLa.Hn aiien es SOMERSCEOTUN TYC HILDRAENND ) YOUTSHE RVICeEatSl ,. , ) Defendants.) MEMORANDUOMR DRE Paliiffnst C'ompailntlo dg meulsteia plllegaatnicdol naspi remtasni intgoo ngosiatntge coru ptrocee indcilinnug gdcuss,tdoy anpdr otefrcomt aibou n(sP "eFA ")p rocee (dSiEneCgeFs . No.1) C.u rrepenntdlbiyen fogtr he eC ouisrP tl atiin' ffMsootnifo r aS atyU nedrF eerda Rluloe f CivPirlo ce62d ("uMroet itooStn a ),y( "ECNFo 3.) i,nw hiPclha iankst tihffCisosrt u t osa tyt he rleevsatantcteo uprrto ecediinncglsung, da iP FA evidehnaetriiasnrhcgdye u lfoer dt omorrow, May29 ,2 02,p5 endignt heo uctmoeo ft hliasuw tis (I.d.at 2 -.3P )lainhtaivaffless r oeu eqsted injuncretliiiventehf i msatert(.E CNFo 1.a 1t9) .1 Withr espteoPc lta inrteiqffufoser a'ss t aty u nedrR ul62e,e nti"tSltoeafPdy r oceedings toE nforcaJe u dgmethnethy[a ,vn]eo"a tr ticuwlhaiptcrehod v iofst ihoRanult e ap pliaetts h is timien t hciase. s (ECNFo 3.)E.s peciintae h lablsye nocfa en s yucarhg umbeyPnl ta in tht eiffs, Court cnanofitn adny proivoions ft haRtu lteh daoteaspp lFye.dR ..C iv.P .6 2T.h erethfo ere, Coudretn Pileasi nMtoitoffints oS't aatyE CFN o3..

1 ThCeo ucarntn doits wcheernt Phaleirna tricueffr sr ernetqtluiyein jsngu ncrteilHvioeew fe.iv lneirtog, fth hteiiemr­ With respect to injunctive relief relative to the ongoing state court proceedings, the Court finds that such requests are barred by Younger abstention principles. Wattie-Bey v. A.G.’s Office, 424 F. App’x 95, 96-97 (3d Cir. 2011) (articulating the elements that make Younger abstention appropriate and applying that doctrine to claims “for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief based on alleged violations of [] constitutional rights in [] ongoing state court proceedings”); Rose v. Cty. of Lehigh, No. A. 01-CV-13, 2001 WL 1085044, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2001) (applying Younger abstention to “ongoing state judicial proceedings involving custody, visitation, and a claim of physical abuse”). Accordingly, insofar as Plaintiffs are presently requesting injunctive relief, the Court denies that request. Therefore, the Court enters the following order: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2 Hy of May, 2025, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion at ECF No. 3 is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Memorandum Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, insofar as Plaintiffs’ currently request injunctive relief relative to ongoing state court proceedings, that request is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Memorandum Order. i, “ AT GAG pues TY atthe □□□□□ Zé Sfenic L. Haines United States District Judge