Dawson v. Napa County

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMANDA JEANE DAWSON, Case No. 25-cv-01923-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 10 NAPA COUNTY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 15 Defendants.

13 On February 24, 2025, Amanda Dawson—proceeding without attorney representation— sued Napa County, Napa County Superior Court, Napa Police Department, Napa County Child Welfare Services, and Napa County Public Defender’s Office. (Dkt. No. 1.) On May 2, 2025, Ms. Dawson filed the pending motion for a temporary restraining order. (Dkt. No. 15.) She seeks “to immediately stay all state criminal proceedings, restraining orders, and juvenile dependency actions related to Plaintiff while this federal civil rights case is pending.” (Id. at 1.)

19 Having carefully considered Ms. Dawson’s submissions, the Court determines oral argument is not required, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES Ms. Dawson’s motion for a temporary restraining order. “[F]ederal courts sitting in equity cannot, absent exceptional circumstances, enjoin pending state criminal proceedings.” ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971)). This principle has been extended “to civil enforcement actions akin to criminal proceedings, and to suits challenging the core of the administration of a State’s judicial system.”

26 Id. (cleaned up); see Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 423 (1979) (concluding Younger abstention appropriate in proceeding to gain custody of children allegedly abused by their parents). Ms. state actions, nor does the Court—having reviewed Ms. Dawson’s submissions—find exceptional || circumstances.

3 This Order disposes of Docket No. 15.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: May 4, 2025 7 ne JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 8 United States District Judge

© = 17 Z 18