Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0327-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William F. HOLDNER, an individual, dba Holdner Farms, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John KROGER, Attorney General of Oregon, in his individual and his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-36090.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 20, 2015.
    William F. Holdner, Portland, OR, pro se.
    Peenesh Shah, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William F. Holdner, dba Holdner Farms, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his declaratory judgment action arising from the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s regulation of Holdner’s cattle ranch and Holdner’s subsequent criminal prosecution for violation of state water pollution statutes. We review de novo. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 982 n. 19 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Holdner’s action as barred by the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings. See Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 975 (listing the requirements for Younger abstention and explaining that the doctrine applies to actions for declaratory relief); see also Wiener v. County of San Diego, 23 F.3d 263, 266 (9th Cir.1994) (“To decide whether there was a pending state judicial proceeding within Younger, we focus on the status of the state court proceeding at the time of the district court’s decision rather than on its current status on appeal.”).

We do not consider Holdner’s arguments regarding the federal land patent and exceptions to Younger abstention, because he raises them for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Holdner’s motion to remand, filed on August 19, 2014, is denied.

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