Agustin v. County of Alameda
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision. The 13 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Williams v. Trosclair (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 2022)
- Gilliam v. Robinson (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 2025)
- (PC) Buchanan v. Wendell (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2025)
- Shahrokhi v. Boutos (District Court, D. Nevada 2024)
- Burns v. Toth (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2022)
- Duell v. Genser (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2021)
- Rosenthal v. Newsome (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2021)
- Kerrou v. Bonifant (District Court, W.D. Washington 2021)
- Quinn S. Bass v. San Bernardino County Sheriffs Dept. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2019)
- Sekerke v. City of National City (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2019)
- Melton Ex Rel. J.R. v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2014)
- Whitehead v. District of Columbia Child Support Services Division (District Court, District of Columbia 2012)
- Delaney v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Benjamin D. Agustín appeals pro se from the district court’s sua sponte order of dismissal based on Younger abstention. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s decision to abstain de novo, Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), overruled in part on other grounds, Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 976-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record even if the district court did not rely on that basis. See United States v. State of Wash., 969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not err when it dismissed the case under the Younger abstention doctrine. See Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 978 (setting forth Younger abstention doctrine requirements). The County of Alameda’s state court action against Agustín to collect child support payments is ongoing, the state court proceedings implicate important state interests, and the state court proceedings provide Agustín an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims. See id. Further, the district court did not err when it dismissed, rather than stayed, the case because Agustin’s damages claims are plainly frivolous. See id. at 982 n. 18.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Agustin’s motion to appoint counsel because he failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Agustin’s request for leave to file a second amended complaint because Agustín did not have standing to allege a claim against Joanne Manuel, see Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 546 (9th Cir. 2004), and amendment would therefore be futile, see United States ex rel. Lee v. SmithKline Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2001).
Agustin’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Agustin’s request for judicial notice of the pending state court action is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.