T. Phillips v. Vincent Ochoa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 24, 2022
• Docket: 21-16030
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

T. MATTHEW PHILLIPS; ALI No. 21-16030 SHAHROKHI, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00483-APG-NJK Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

VINCENT OCHOA, Clark County District Court Judge, Family Division; MATHEW HARTER, Clark County District Court Judge, Family Division; C AARON FORD, Nevada Attorney General,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2022**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

T. Matthew Philips and Ali Shahrokhi appeal from the district court’s

judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims

* 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). related to a family court proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo the application of abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401

U.S. 37 (1971). ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d

754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.

Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs’ action because, due to

the Nevada Supreme Court’s recent decisions to affirm plaintiffs’ custody orders in

which plaintiffs raised the same constitutional issues brought in this action,

plaintiffs’ claims are barred by issue preclusion. See Cook v. Harding, 879 F.3d

1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2018) (acknowledging that Younger abstention has been

limited in civil cases but affirming dismissal on the basis of issue preclusion);

Alcantara ex rel. Alcantara v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 321 P.3d 912, 916 (Nev.

2014) (elements of issue preclusion under Nevada state law).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-16030