Hahn v. Reyes , 698 F. App'x 561 ( 2017 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 4, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RANDY HAHN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 17-4067
(D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00666-DN)
SEAN D. REYES; RYAN HARRIS; KIM (D. Utah)
M. LUHN; LIESA STOCKDALE,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
The district court abstained from exercising jurisdiction under Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and dismissed Randy Hahn's case.1 Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, we affirm.
In his complaint, Mr. Hahn alleged civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1985 against the State of Utah, its attorney general, a state district judge,
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1
The district court also cited the “domestic relations exception” to federal
jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992).
a state court commissioner, and the director of the state office of recovery services.
The alleged violations concern an ongoing domestic dispute between Mr. Hahn and
his ex-spouse and Utah state court orders modifying a New Mexico divorce decree
regarding parent time, child custody and child support. Mr. Hahn's appeal of those
orders to the Utah Court of Appeals is pending.
The Younger abstention doctrine generally prohibits federal courts from
interfering with ongoing state proceedings. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54. The
district court dismissed based on its finding that the three conditions for Younger
abstention had been met: (1) an ongoing civil proceeding, (2) an adequate state
forum to raise his constitutional claims, and (3) state proceedings involving important
state interests. See Amanatullah v. Colo. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 187 F.3d 1160, 1163
(10th Cir. 1999); Taylor v. Jaquez, 126 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1997).
In his appellate brief, Mr. Hahn devotes one page to the abstention issue and
does not challenge that the three Younger conditions have been met. He argues only
that “Younger abstention does not apply when the state ‘flagrantly and patently’
violates a constitutional right.” Aplt. Br. at 4 (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54).
But his arguments are conclusory, inadequately briefed, and otherwise lack merit.
In his brief, Mr. Hahn points to no Utah statute or particular state court ruling as
the basis for his claims. The only case he cites is Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
(1976), which stated a balancing test for the process due to protect a property or liberty
interest, but he fails to explain how it applies to his case. In short, he raises no viable
2
argument to challenge the district court's ruling. The district court correctly abstained
under Younger.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.2
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
2
We deny as moot Mr. Hahn's motion to certify a question of state law to the
Utah Supreme Court. See Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 441 F.3d 1214,
1220 (10th Cir. 2006).
3