Case ID: f-appx_166/html/0736-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jo Anne GREENE; Richard Greene; grandparents and sole temporary managing conservators, In re Interest of ECL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; Kent Ellis, Honorable, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-20238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 13, 2006.
    Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The district court correctly abstained, as it was required to do under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). See also, e.g., Huffman v. Pursue, 420 U.S. 592, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975); Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 52 L.Ed.2d 486 (1977); Texas Ass’n of Business v. Earle, 388 F.3d 515, 519 (5th Cir.2004). None of the exceptions to Younger abstention is present or even claimed. Appellants had and have ample opportunity to present their federal claims in the state proceeding. See, e.g., Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977). It is immaterial that appellants do not seek to enjoin the entire state court proceedings but merely to control the decision of one matter therein. See Williams v. Rubiera, 539 F.2d 470, 473 (5th Cir.1976); Ballard v. Wilson, 856 F.2d 1568, 1570 (5th Cir.1988).

The decision of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.