Davidson v. Vivra Inc.
Davidson v. Vivra Inc.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Robert M. Davidson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Baffert v. Calif. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 617 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm.
Davidson requested that the district court stay the ongoing proceedings in Grossman v. Davidson, Pima County Superior Court Case No. C-333954 (the “State Action”). Thus, there is “ ‘no doubt’ that the federal injunctive relief would interfere directly with those proceedings.” Baffert, 332 F.3d at 617 (Younger abstention proper where party sought to enjoin state administrative proceedings).
Contrary to Davidson’s contention, Younger abstention is not limited to criminal proceedings. See Columbia Basin
Davidson’s remaining contentions are similarly unpersuasive.
We deny all pending motions.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.