Elwood

Elwood v. Drescher

Good Law
90 F. App'x 501
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 2, 2004No. 02-56917; D.C. No. CV-02-04656-LGBCalifornia1,282 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Darla Elwood, Terri and Edward Elwood, Anthony Delaplane, and Amy Meinke appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Commissioner Robert Zakon, Referee Valerie Skeba, Judge John Farrell, Judge Haig Kehiayan, Judge William Mac-Laughlin, Judy Hutchinson, and Robert Drescher. 1 We affirm.

I

We have jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was timely in light of the entry of final judgments in favor of Drescher on October 2, 2002; Hutchinson on October 10, 2002; and Skeba, Zakon, Farrell, MacLaughlin, and Kehiayan on March 18, 2003. Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a); Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(2).

II

As the district court held, Younger abstention applies to Elwood’s claims against Zakon and Farrell because the relief that Elwood seeks would interfere with matters pending before the state courts. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); see Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1094-95 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). The ongoing state proceedings implicate important state interests in family relations, as well as “protecting the authority of the judicial system.” H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610 , 613 (9th Cir.2000)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.