Shakir v. Adams, C18-1333 RSL-MLP. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20190619f22
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, any objections or responses to that, and the remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS: (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 1 (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. # 30) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to s
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, any objections or responses to that, and the remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS: (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 1 (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. # 30) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to se..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, any objections or responses to that, and the remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS:
(1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.1
(2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. # 30) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge Peterson.
FootNotes
1. Abstention under the Younger doctrine is appropriate in this case because the parallel, pending state proceeding is, as the Magistrate Judge recognized, a criminal prosecution. State criminal prosecutions are one of the three exceptional circumstances in which the prospect of undue interference with state proceedings counsels against federal interference. See New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans, 451 U.S. 350, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1989). The specific criteria mentioned by the Magistrate Judge at page 5 of the Report and Recommendation, standing alone, are too broad in that they "would extend Younger to virtually all parallel state and federal proceedings . . . where a party could identify a plausibly important state interest." Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 81 (2013). Clarifying Younger's scope, the Supreme Court has instructed that these criteria, while not dispositive, should be considered as "additional factors" in determining the appropriateness of abstention in cases where the parallel proceedings are civil. Id.
Source: Leagle
