Shaylee Jackson v. State of Washington Department of Children Youth and Families, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 29, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-05084
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 SHAYLEE JACKSON, Case No. 3:26-cv-05084-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY 9 MOTION FOR RETURN OF CHILDREN v. AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 10 RESTRAINING ORDER AND STATE OF WASHINGTON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 11 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN YOUTH 12 AND FAMILIES, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Plaintiff Shaylee Jackson has filed an emergency motion for the return of her children 16 (Dkt. 2) and a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (Dkt. 17 3). Ms. Jackson argues that Defendants violated Washington state law by removing her children 18 without a court order and without holding a shelter care hearing within 72 hours. Dkt. 2. She asks 19 the Court to order Defendants to return her children and to cease enforcement of ongoing 20 dependency actions. Dkts. 2, 3. 21 A party seeking a TRO or preliminary injunction must show that (1) she is “likely to 22 succeed on the merits” of her lawsuit; (2) she is “likely to suffer irreparable harm” unless the 23 Court issues a TRO or preliminary injunction; (3) the “balance of equities” favors her; and (4) a 24 1 TRO or preliminary injunction would be “in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 2 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 3 2017). A “likelihood of success on the merits” means that the party has shown a “fair chance of

4 success” in the lawsuit. Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana, 98 F.4th 1180, 5 1192 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th 6 Cir. 1988)). 7 Here, Ms. Jackson has not shown that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims 8 against Defendants. First, as set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts 9 must typically abstain from exercising jurisdiction to interfere with ongoing state judicial 10 proceedings. “Absent extraordinary circumstances, Younger abstention is required if the state 11 proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff 12 an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims.” H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610,

13 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that Younger abstention applied to case arising from child custody 14 dispute); see also Erichsen v. County of Orange, 677 F. App’x 379, 380–81 (9th Cir. 2017) 15 (explaining that Younger abstention required denial of TRO seeking to enjoin state dependency 16 proceedings). Ms. Jackson can raise her claims that the removal of her children violated state and 17 federal law in the ongoing dependency proceeding. 18 Second, Ms. Jackson has not alleged specific facts in her proposed complaint to support 19 her federal constitutional claims. See Dkt. 1-1. In other words, because she has not explained in 20 detail how her constitutional rights were violated, or provided evidence to support those 21 allegations, she has not shown that she has a “fair chance of success” on these claims. 22 For the above reasons, the emergency motion for return of children (Dkt. 2) and motion

23 for TRO and preliminary injunction (Dkt. 3) are DENIED. 24 l The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 2 || to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 3 Dated this 29th day of January, 2026. Eg 5 Tiffany-M. Cartwright United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RETURN OF CHILDREN AND MOTION FOR