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)

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-