U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2026

Turner v. State of Oregon

Turner v. State of Oregon
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 29, 2026
Turner v. State of Oregon

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELIZABETH TURNER, No. 25-5311 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-00409-SB Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF OREGON, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Amy M. Baggio, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2026** Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Elizabeth Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s order staying her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims in connection with ongoing state criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s abstention determination under Younger v. Harris, 401

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

U.S. 37 (1971). Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

The district court properly stayed Turner’s action under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state judicial proceedings where the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state judicial proceeding, and Turner failed to show that an exception to Younger applies. See id. at 1133 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention); Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 617, 621 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth exceptions to Younger abstention; a claimed constitutional violation “does not, by itself, constitute an exception to the application of Younger abstention”).

The district court did not err by denying as moot Turner’s motion for pro bono counsel after staying the action.

We reject as unsupported by the record Turner’s contentions that the magistrate judge was biased against Turner.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-5311

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.