Roger Quinn v. Joanne Kibodeaux

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGER QUINN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOANNE KIBODEAUX,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-36070
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00291-DCN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Roger Quinn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to a family court proceeding. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the application of
abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ReadyLink Healthcare,
* 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
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-36070
Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Quinn’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)); H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel,
203 F.3d 610, 612-14 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that Younger abstention is
appropriate where federal action seeks to challenge ongoing state child custody
proceedings).
Quinn’s motion for temporary injunction pending appeal (Docket Entry Nos.
9 and 10) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --