Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0354-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. Mackey SALAZAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmond G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16488.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2015.
    C. Mackey Salazar, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
    Anne Michelle Burr, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

C. Mackey Salazar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in connection with pending state administrative proceedings.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 982 n. 19 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Salazar’s action was proper because it was subject to abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). See ReadyL-ink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir.2014) (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases). Because Salazar’s action was barred under Younger, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir.2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[a] district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.