Josiah English Iii v. THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge in his individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSIAH ENGLISH III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO, Maricopa
County Superior Court Judge in his
individual and official capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16258
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-03221-GMS-JZB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state pretrial detainee Josiah English, III, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his
state court grand jury and child custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
* 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
DEC 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16258
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 English’s action as barred under the
Younger abstention doctrine 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.” Id. at 758-59 (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)).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
English’s request for a temporary restraining order, set forth in his opening
brief, is denied.
English’s motion for clarification (Docket Entry No. 10) is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --