Benson v. Linville

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID ALLEN BENSON, No. 26-2321 D.C. No. 8:26-cv-00451-MRA- Plaintiff - Appellant, DMK v. MEMORANDUM* CRAIG LINVILLE, as CHP Officer; KYLE ANKNEY; COUNTY OF ORANGE; TODD SPITZER; RAYMUND DIAZ, as District Attorney; DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Monica Ramirez Almadani, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2026** Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

David Allen Benson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking to

* 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). enjoin the state criminal proceedings against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review de novo. Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2021) (abstention determination under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Benson’s request for a preliminary injunction because, under the Younger abstention doctrine, the district court was required to abstain from interfering with Benson’s pending state court criminal proceedings and Benson 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”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Benson’s contentions of judicial bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (explaining that judicial rulings alone rarely support an allegation of bias).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 26-2321