Knox v. Attorney General of the State of Nevada et al

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/19/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KSR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

STEPHANIE KNOX,

5
6
7
8
9

Case No. 2:15-CV-00921-APG-GWF
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
NEVADA, ADAM PAUL LAXALT, and
LISA RUIZ-LEE,

(Dkt. #1)

Defendants.

10
11
12

Petitioner Stephanie Knox filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. #1) in which

13

she seeks emergency relief in the form of an order from this Court staying a trial for the

14

termination of parental rights scheduled to begin May 20, 2015 in Nevada state court. I deny the

15

request for emergency relief.

16

Preliminarily, Knox did not comply with the Local Rules for filing emergency motions.

17

See LR 7-5 (requiring that the filing be entitled “Emergency Motion” and be accompanied by an

18

affidavit setting forth the nature of the emergency, the office address and telephone numbers of

19

the movant and all affected parties, and a statement certifying that, after personal consultation and

20

sincere effort to do so, the moving party has been unable to resolve the matter without court

21

intervention and detailing efforts to contact the other side). That would be grounds to deny the

22

requested relief. However, given that Knox is acting pro se, I will consider her petition as a

23

motion for emergency relief despite her failure to comply with the Local Rules.

24

Federal courts may not intervene in ongoing state proceedings under the abstention

25

doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger abstention, a

26

federal court may not exercise jurisdiction when doing so would interfere with state judicial

27

proceedings. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431

28

(1982). A district court must abstain and dismiss a suit on the basis of Younger where: (1) state

1

proceedings are ongoing; (2) important state interests are involved; (3) the plaintiff has an

2

adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims in the state proceedings; and (4) “the federal court

3

action would enjoin the proceeding, or have the practical effect of doing so.” Potrero Hills

4

Landfill, Inc. v. Cnty. of Solano, 657 F.3d 876, 882 (9th Cir. 2011); Middlesex Cnty. Ethics

5

Comm’n, 457 U.S. at 432.

6

By Knox’s own allegations, state proceedings are ongoing. Important state interests are

7

involved because “[f]amily relations are a traditional area of state concern.” Moore v. Sims, 442

8

U.S. 415, 435 (1979). Knox has an adequate opportunity to litigate her parental rights in state

9

court. She alleges a trial on the matter is set to commence tomorrow, and she may appeal any

10

decision by the district court terminating her parent rights. See, e.g., In re Parental Rights of

11

J.L.N., 55 P.3d 955 (Nev. 2002) (reviewing on appeal district court’s decision terminating

12

parental rights, and finding substantial evidence did not support termination was in the child’s

13

best interests and parent overcame the statutory presumption for termination of rights). Finally,

14

this action would enjoin the state court proceeding because Knox specifically requests that I

15

enjoin the state court trial set to commence tomorrow morning. I therefore deny Knox’s request

16

for emergency relief. Moreover, because the only relief Knox requests is for me to stay the state

17

court proceedings and order the return of Knox’s minor child to her custody, I dismiss this case.

18

Because Knox is litigating this matter pro se, and given the impending state court

19

proceedings, I am emailing this order to the email address Knox has provided, in addition to

20

service by regular mail, so that Knox may file an emergency appeal to the United States Court of

21

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit if she chooses to do so.

22
23
24

IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Stephanie Knox’s Writ of Habeas Corpus is
DENIED and this action is DISMISSED.
DATED this 19th day of May, 2015.

25
26
27

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
Page 2 of 2