Keith L. Drunasky v. Arizona Department of Economic Security;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH L. DRUNASKY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC SECURITY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16316
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00014-SRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Keith L. Drunasky appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging constitutional violations in connection with state
child support enforcement proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
MAY 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16316 2
§ 1291. We review de novo, Sacks v. Office of Foreign Assets Control, 466 F.3d
764, 770 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Drunasky’s action under Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because the state family court proceedings are still
ongoing, implicate important state interests, and provide an adequate opportunity
to litigate federal claims. See H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613-14
(9th Cir. 2000) (abstention required where child custody proceedings were still
ongoing).
Drunasky’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --