C. Salazar v. Edmund Brown, Jr.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
C. Mackey Salazar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in connection with pending state administrative proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 , 982 n. 19 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of Salazar’s action was proper because it was subject to abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). See ReadyL-ink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir.2014) (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases). Because Salazar’s action was barred under Younger , the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir.2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[a] district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile”).