Case ID: f-appx_425/html/0583-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gary D. EASLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-16406.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 29, 2011.
    Karen Lee Landau, Esquire, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Gary D. Easley, Milpitas, CA, pro se.
    Brian G. Smiley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gary D. Easley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his ha-beas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The government contends that dismissal of Easley’s petition was proper in light of the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). We agree. As a threshold matter, the government’s failure to raise the Younger argument in the district court does not prevent us from addressing it on appeal. See H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (“Younger abstention may be raised sua sponte at any point in the appellate process.”). In light of the ongoing state criminal proceedings at the time Eas-ley fried his federal habeas petition, dismissal was appropriate under Younger. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44, 91 S.Ct. 746 (holding that on principles of federalism and comity, federal courts should abstain from intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances).

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