Lund v. Brewer et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 6 , 9 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction FURTHER ORDERED That because the Court has not considered the report sought to be filed under seal, the report (lodged at Doc. 7 ) is stricken from the record. The motion to seal (Doc. 8 ) is denied as moot (but the stricken document shall remain under seal). Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 10/7/11.(MAP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of) Arizona, in her official capacity; et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Bradford D. Lund, No. CV 11-1922-PHX-JAT ORDER 16 17 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and 18 motion for preliminary injunction. Both of these motions arise from a guardianship 19 established over Plaintiff in the superior court of Maricopa county. Based on Plaintiff’s 20 filings, it appears Joseph Boyle has been appointed Guardian Ad Litem for Plaintiff. 21 However, the current case is brought by counsel Jeff A. Shumway on Plaintiff’s behalf 22 against the Guardian Ad Litem and others. (Doc. 9-3 at 1.) 23 It is clear from Plaintiff’s filings that the probate case in which Defendant Judge 24 Robert Myers appointed a guardian ad litem is still on-going. Plaintiff seeks to have this 25 Court intervene in that probate case and: 1) enjoin Defendant Boyle from taking any acting 26 in his capacity as guardian ad litem, 2) enjoin Defendant Boyle from participating in the 27 probate matter involving Plaintiff, 3) stay the discovery requests currently pending in the 28 probate case (Doc. 9-2, at 2) and, 4) terminate the guardianship (Doc. 6-5 at 1). 1 The Younger abstention doctrine provides that federal courts are not to interfere with 2 pending state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). This 3 abstention doctrine applies “not only when the pending state proceedings are criminal, but 4 also when certain civil proceedings are pending, if the State’s interests in the proceeding are 5 so important that exercise of the federal judicial power would disregard the comity between 6 the States and the National Government.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 11 7 (1987); see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 8 (1982) (“Younger v. Harris[], and its progeny espouse a strong federal policy against 9 federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary 10 circumstances.”). 11 Having read the motions in this case, the Court finds that the relief sought falls 12 squarely within the prohibition of Younger. Thus, the Court will deny the motions and the 13 request for a hearing. This denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the motions. If 14 Plaintiff re-files, Plaintiff must first address how this Court can intercede in a state court 15 proceeding without running afoul of Younger. Plaintiff shall also address whether Plaintiff 16 has exhausted all appellate remedies available in state court. Finally, if Plaintiff re-files, 17 Plaintiff must propose a bond amount. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 65. Accordingly, 18 19 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction (Docs. 6 and 9) are denied. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the Court has not considered the report 21 sought to be filed under seal, the report (lodged at Doc. 7) is stricken from the record. The 22 motion to seal (Doc. 8) is denied as moot (but the stricken document shall remain under seal). 23 DATED this 7th day of October, 2011. 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?