Jeannette Martello v. Shelley Rouillard

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEANNETTE MARTELLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHELLEY ROUILLARD, In her official
capacity as Director of the California
Department of Managed Health Care;
KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, In her
official capacity as Director of the Medical
Board of California,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-56185
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01798-CAS-AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jeannette Martello appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action challenging the constitutionality of California’s prohibition
* 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). Martello’s request for oral
argument set forth in her opening brief is denied.
FILED
APR 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-56185
against balance billing. 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Martello’s action 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.” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 758-59
(setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martello’s motion
for reconsideration because Martello failed to state any grounds warranting 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 grounds for relief under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
Appellees’ motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 30 and 38) are
granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --