Paul Maney v. Kristin Winges-Yanez , 643 F. App'x 616 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL JULIAN MANEY, No. 14-35881
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:13-cv-00981-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KRISTIN A. WINGES-YANEZ,
Chairperson, Oregon Board of Parole &
Post-Prison Supervision (Board); KIM
GONZALES, Hearings/Scheduling Clerk,
Board,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Paul Julian Maney, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking injunctive and
*
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).
declaratory relief in connection with parole hearings. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp.
Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Maney’s action as barred under
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because federal courts are required to
abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal
action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.”
ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 759 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in
civil cases, and explaining that “the date for determining whether Younger applies
is the date the federal action is filed” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The district did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because
amendment would have been futile. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d
719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a
district court may deny leave to amend where amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Maney’s motion for
reconsideration because Maney failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and explaining circumstances
2 14-35881
warranting reconsideration).
Maney’s motion for extension of time, filed November 4, 2014, is denied as
moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-35881