S.P. Ex Rel. Parks v. Native Village of Minto

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs-Appellants S.P., Edward Parks, and Evelyn Parks appeal an order of the district court dismissing the case under the abstention doctrine established by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Appellants argue that Defendant-Appellee Native Village of Minto (“Minto”) and its tribal court lacked jurisdiction to make a custody determination concerning his child. The district court abstained under Younger , citing ongoing custody proceedings in Alaska state court. We affirm.

The Younger question arises when disposition of a federal case “would have the same practical effect on [a] state proceeding as a formal injunction.” Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 977-78 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc). Abstention “is required if ... state proceedings (1) are ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims.” Hirsh v. Justices of Sup.Ct. of Cal., 67 F.3d 708 , 712 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 , 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982)). Appellants concede that the three Younger factors…