Henry Elem, III v. Cynthia Kuhn ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENRY ELEM III, No. 21-16508
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00325-JAS-PSOT
v.
CYNTHIA T. KUHN, named as Hon. MEMORANDUM*
Cynthina T Kuhn, Superior Court Judge,
official capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Henry Elem III appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court’s abstention determination under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37(1971). ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758
(9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Elem’s action as barred under the
Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts should avoid interfering “with
ongoing state criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings.” Arevalo v.
Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining when a district court
should decline jurisdiction under Younger). Nor has Elem demonstrated that
defendants acted in bad faith. See Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 902-03 (9th Cir.
2012) (discussing exceptions to Younger abstention, including bad faith).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-16508