UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO IGOR MALANCHUK,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-000332-BLW v. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RICHARD D. CAMPBELL et al., Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Igor Malanchuk’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Dkt. 32). He argues that the Court erred in dismissing his case without allowing him to complete service or submit further evidence of what he describes as judicial misconduct in several state court cases. The Court will deny the motion because Younger abstention still requires the dismissal of the case.

Malanchuk filed this action in June 2025 against more than a dozen defendants, including several law firms and Kootenai County District Court staff members. The complaint alleges a vast conspiracy to deny him access to the court

in state civil cases. He sought a temporary restraining order in this Court to halt the state proceedings, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Acting promptly at Malanchuk’s request, the Court denied the TRO and dismissed the case pursuant to Younger v. Harris,

(1971), which requires federal courts to abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings.

Malanchuk now seeks relief from judgment under Rule 60, which allows a court to relieve a party from final judgment for reasons including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” and “any other reason that justifies

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). His core argument that is that the Court should have allowed him to finish serving defendants and to submit further evidence in support of his motion for a TRO. He also complains of various misdeeds by defendants, including conflicts of interest and problems with service.

From these many objections, one begins to get a sense of why Malanchuk has not been doing well in his state court cases. Fortunately, it is unnecessary to take the time to rebut each of his allegations because none of them bear on the core

reason for dismissing this case. Younger abstention has nothing to do with service or conflicts of interest. The doctrine is about comity, equity, and federalism, and it requires federal courts to abstain from hearing cases that would interfere with the vast majority of ongoing

state proceedings. See, e.g., Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.,

(1987). This includes civil proceedings that “implicate a State’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts.” Sprint Commc’ns v. Jacobs,

, 72-

73 (2013). “Absent extraordinary circumstances, Younger abstention is required if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims.” H.C. ex rel. Gordon vy. Koppel,

, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). Younger abstention may be raised sua sponte by courts, and dismissal is mandatory when the above factors

are met. See id. In the present case, Malanchuk asked the Court to interfere directly with state proceedings by staying hearings in the Kootenai County District Court and enjoining enforcement of that court’s monetary judgments against him. This is exactly what Younger doctrine prevents. This Court’s previous Memorandum Decision and Order explained in detail why this case is outside the purview of a federal district court. See Dkt. 31. All those reasons still stand and necessitate the denial of Malanchuk’s Motion for Relief from Judgment.

ORDER THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment (Dkt. 32) is DENIED. bp Yr DATED: October 22, 2025 iy Bf Warnell Ss U 5. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 3