UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA LAINE, Case No. 21-cv-09449-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., STAY Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 15, 17, 36

The defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and Laine’s motion to stay is denied. Abstention is appropriate where, as here, there exists an “ongoing state judicial proceeding” that “implicate[s] important state interests,” and in which the plaintiff has the “opportunity . . . to raise constitutional challenges.” Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association,

(1982); see also Younger v. Harris,

(1971) (restraining federal courts from “interfering with criminal prosecutions”). The criminal action against Laine in California state court for violating the domestic violence restraining order against him is ongoing. The State has a clear interest in enforcing such restraining orders. And nothing suggests that Laine will be unable to raise his constitutional challenges during the state proceeding. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California,

(9th Cir. 1995) (“Judicial review is inadequate only when state procedural law bars presentation of the federal claims.”). That Laine is currently incarcerated on separate state criminal charges does not warrant a stay. This case is therefore dismissed without prejudice under Younger. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 19, 2022 = VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge