Laine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA LAINE, Case No. 21-cv-09449-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

v. MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., STAY Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 15, 17,

The defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and Laine’s motion to stay is denied. Abstention is appropriate where, as here, there exists an “ongoing state judicial proceeding” that “implicate[s] important state interests,” and in which the plaintiff has the “opportunity . . . to raise constitutional challenges.” Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971) (restraining federal courts from “interfering with criminal prosecutions”). The criminal action against Laine in California state court for violating the domestic violence restraining order against him is ongoing. The State has a clear interest in enforcing such restraining orders. And nothing suggests that Laine will be unable to raise his constitutional challenges during the state proceeding. See…