Slojkowski v. Clark County Family Services et al

Filing 7

ORDER Denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.; denying 4 Motion for Order Shortening Time, and Denying 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 6/7/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 CARMENO SLOJKOWSKI, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 Case No. 2:12-CV-00907-KJD-CWH CLARK COUNTY FAMILY SERVICES, et al., ORDER 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Emergency Motions for Temporary Restraining Order (#2, 18 #5) and Emergency Motions for Preliminary Injunctions (#3, #6). Plaintiff has also moved for an 19 Order Shortening Time (#4). 20 Plaintiff asks the Court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining 21 Case # D-11-453103-r, an action related to the custody of Plaintiff’s children which is pending in the 22 Family Division of the Eighth Judicial District Court. 23 The Younger Abstention Doctrine directs federal courts to abstain from granting injunctive 24 or declaratory relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings. See Younger v. 25 Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 40-41 (1971); Hirsh v. Justices of the Sup. Ct. of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 712 (9th 26 1 Cir. 1995). Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention is required under Younger if the state 2 proceedings: (1) are ongoing; (2) implicate important state interests; and (3) provide the plaintiff an 3 adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims. See id. (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. 4 Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). 5 Here, the proceedings are ongoing. It is axiomatic that the business of Clark County Family 6 Services implicates an important state interest. Finally, Plaintiff has not shown why the state 7 proceedings would deprive him of the opportunity to litigate any federal claims. Accordingly, the 8 Younger Abstention Doctrine precludes this Court from interfering with the state court proceedings. 9 10 11 12 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary Restraining Order (#2, #5) and Emergency Motions for Preliminary Injunctions (#3, #6) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Shortening Time (#4) is DENIED. DATED this 7th day of June 2012. 14 15 16 17 _____________________________ Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?