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)

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