William Holdner v. John Kroger ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM F. HOLDNER, an individual, No. 12-36090
DBA Holdner Farms,
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01159-PK
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JOHN KROGER, Attorney General of
Oregon, in his individual and his official
capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
William F. Holdner, dba Holdner Farms, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his declaratory judgment action arising from the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Oregon Department of Agriculture’s regulation of Holdner’s cattle ranch and
Holdner’s subsequent criminal prosecution for violation of state water pollution
statutes. We review de novo. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 982 n.19 (9th
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Holdner’s action as barred by the
Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from
interfering with pending state court proceedings. See Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 975
(listing the requirements for Younger abstention and explaining that the doctrine
applies to actions for declaratory relief); see also Wiener v. County of San Diego,
23 F.3d 263, 266 (9th Cir. 1994) (“To decide whether there was a pending state
judicial proceeding within Younger, we focus on the status of the state court
proceeding at the time of the district court’s decision rather than on its current
status on appeal.”).
We do not consider Holdner’s arguments regarding the federal land patent
and exceptions to Younger abstention, because he raises them for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Holdner’s motion to remand, filed on August 19, 2014, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-36090