JOSE DeCASTRO v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DeCASTRO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; STATE OF NEVADA;
BRANDEN BOURQUE; JASON TORREY;
C. DINGLE; B. SORENSON; JESSE
SANDOVAL; C. DOOLITTLE,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-16089
D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00580-APG-EJY
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose DeCastro appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 action
* 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
NOV 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-16089
alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1). We review de novo the district court’s abstention determination
under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088,
1093 (9th Cir. 2023). We affirm.
The district court properly denied DeCastro’s request for a preliminary
injunction because under the Younger abstention doctrine, the district court was
required to abstain from interfering with DeCastro’s pending state court criminal
proceedings. See id. at 1094 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention);
Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 617, 621 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting
forth exceptions to Younger abstention and concluding that claimed constitutional
violation “does not, by itself, constitute an exception to the application of Younger
abstention”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying DeCastro’s motion
for reconsideration because DeCastro failed to establish any basis for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --