Michael B. Williams v. AUDREY KING, Executive Director, Coalinga State Hospital; COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AUDREY KING, Executive Director,
Coalinga State Hospital; COALINGA
STATE HOSPITAL,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15265
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01253-DAD-MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent
Predator Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process claims arising from his detention. We
* 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).
FILED
JUL 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15265
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal under the Younger abstention doctrine. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v.
State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action under the Younger
abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering
with pending state court proceedings if all of the requirements for abstention are
met, and no exception to abstention applies. See id. at 758-59 (setting forth
requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases). We reject as without merit
Williams’s contention that extraordinary circumstances render Younger abstention
inapplicable in his case.
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Williams’s motion for appointment of counsel and to consolidate cases
(Docket Entry No. 7) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --