Filed: Feb. 13, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-20238 JO ANNE GREENE; RICHARD GREENE; grandparents and sole temporary managing conservators, in re interest of ECL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; KENT ELLIS, Honorable, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (05-CV-520) Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-20238 JO ANNE GREENE; RICHARD GREENE; grandparents and sole temporary managing conservators, in re interest of ECL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; KENT ELLIS, Honorable, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (05-CV-520) Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20238
JO ANNE GREENE; RICHARD GREENE;
grandparents and sole temporary
managing conservators, in re
interest of ECL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; KENT ELLIS,
Honorable,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(05-CV-520)
Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court correctly abstained, as it was required to
do under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). See also, e.g.,
Huffman v. Pursue,
420 U.S. 592 (1975); Trainor v. Hernandez, 431
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
U.S. 434 (1977); Texas Ass’n of Business v. Earle, 388 F.3d 515,
519 (5th Cir. 2004). None of the exceptions to Younger abstention
is present or even claimed. Appellants had and have ample
opportunity to present their federal claims in the state
proceeding. See, e.g., Juidice v. Vail,
430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977).
It is immaterial that appellants do not seek to enjoin the entire
state court proceedings but merely to control the decision of one
matter therein. See Williams v. Rubiera,
539 F.2d 470, 473 (5th
Cir. 1976); Ballard v. Wilson,
856 F.2d 1568, 1570 (5th Cir. 1988).
The decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2
