Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Greg Moore, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Sean Garnand, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00290-TUC-RM (MAA)

ORDER 

On September 17, 2024, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ambri issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 520), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ 

Motion to Stay All Proceedings (Doc. 512). Plaintiffs filed an Objection (Doc. 521), to 

which Defendants responded (Doc. 524).

I. Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Ambri’s R&R finds that this action should be stayed pursuant to 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), pending resolution of state-court criminal 

proceedings against Plaintiff Greg Moore. (Doc. 520.) In so finding, the R&R determines 

that the indictment against Greg Moore was filed in state court before proceedings of 

substance on the merits had taken place in this action. (Id. at 3-6.) The R&R further finds 

that the criminal case implicates important state interests, that Greg Moore will have an 

opportunity to raise the constitutional claims at issue here in the state proceedings, and that 

adjudicating this action on the merits would have the practical effect of enjoining the state 

proceedings. (Id. at 6-8.) The R&R concludes that Defendants did not waive the issue of 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 525 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 8
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Younger abstention because they did not urge this Court to proceed to an adjudication of 

the constitutional merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id. at 8-9.) Finally, the R&R finds that the 

interests of Plaintiff Patricia Moore in this action are sufficiently intertwined with the 

interests of Greg Moore such that Younger exemption should apply to her claims as well. 

(Id. at 9-10.)

II. Standard of Review

A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the 

court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory 

committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 

739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court 

judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUCRCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error 

unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

III. Discussion

Younger abstention “is designed to ‘permit state courts to try state cases free from 

interference by federal courts.’” Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349 (1975) (quoting 

Younger, 401 U.S. at 43). The principles underlying Younger abstention apply if: (1) “a 

state-initiated proceeding is ongoing,” (2) the state proceeding “implicates important state 

interests,” (3) “the federal litigant is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues” 

in the state proceeding, and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the state proceeding 

“or have the practical effect of doing so.” Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 978 (9th 

Cir. 2004). Younger abstention may apply in an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 that “turn[s] on a constitutional challenge to pending state proceedings.” Id. at 979. 

If Younger abstention applies in such an action, the Court should stay the action “until the 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 525 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 8
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

state proceeding has been completed.” Id. at 980.

Plaintiffs do not raise any specific objections to the R&R’s conclusions that (1) the 

state criminal proceeding against Greg Moore implicates important state interests; (2) Greg 

Moore will have the opportunity to challenge in state court the search warrants at issue 

here; and (3) the relevant interests of Greg and Patricia Moore are sufficiently intertwined 

such that Younger abstention, if appropriate, should apply to the claims of both Plaintiffs. 

(See Doc. 520 at 6, 9-10; Doc. 521.) Given the lack of specific objection, the Court has 

reviewed these portions of the R&R only for clear error. The Court finds that these portions 

of the R&R are not clearly erroneous and will therefore adopt them.

In their Objection, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants waived the issue of Younger 

abstention. (Doc. 521 at 2-10.) Plaintiffs also challenge the R&R’s conclusions that the 

state criminal proceedings against Greg Moore were ongoing before any proceedings of 

substance took place in the above-captioned action, and that this action would have the 

practical effect of enjoining the state criminal proceedings. (See id. at 6-7.) The Court 

addresses each argument in turn.

A. Waiver

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have aggressively litigated the merits of this case

over the course of years and that, in doing so, they have waived any argument for Younger

abstention. (Doc. 521 at 2-10.) Defendants argue that they have never sought a ruling on 

the constitutional merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, and that a party cannot waive the issue of 

Younger abstention merely by waiting too long to raise it. (Doc. 524 at 3-5.)

A defendant may waive the issue of Younger abstention by expressly urging the 

district court “‘to proceed to an adjudication of the constitutional merits’” of the federal 

action. Kleenwell Biohazard Waste & Gen. Ecology Consultants, Inc. v. Nelson, 48 F.3d 

391, 394 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schs., 

Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 626 (1986)). However, “the issue of Younger abstention can be 

addressed by a federal court at any time no matter how far along the litigation is.” Adibi v. 

Cal. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also H.C.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 525 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 8
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (considering Younger

abstention for the first time on appeal and noting that the issue “may be raised sua sponte 

at any point”).

The Court agrees with the R&R that Defendants did not waive the issue of Younger

abstention because they did not expressly urge the Court to proceed to an adjudication of 

the constitutional merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. In moving for summary judgment on the 

issue of qualified immunity, Defendants argued that they were immune from suit and that 

this Court should therefore not adjudicate the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. See Pearson v. 

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231–32 (2009) (recognizing that “qualified immunity is an 

immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” and that qualified immunity 

questions should therefore be resolved “at the earliest possible stage in litigation” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). The Court also notes that Defendants raised the issue of 

Younger abstention in their August 15, 2019 Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (Doc. 17 at 

12.)

B. Ongoing State Proceedings

Plaintiffs contend that the principles underlying Younger abstention are not 

implicated here because this “case is far older, and dramatically more advanced, than the 

state proceeding.” (Doc. 521 at 6.) Defendants argue that Younger abstention is 

appropriate because no proceedings of substance on the merits occurred in this case before 

state criminal proceedings were initiated against Greg Moore. (Doc. 524 at 6.)

Younger abstention may apply even if a state criminal prosecution was filed after 

commencement of the federal action, so long as the state proceeding began “before any 

proceedings of substance on the merits ha[d] taken place in the federal court.” Hicks, 422 

U.S. at 349. “[I]t is not the filing date of the federal action that matters, but the date when 

substantive proceedings begin.” M&A Gabaee v. Cmty. Redev. Agency of City of Los 

Angeles, 419 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). “[It] makes no difference what stage the 

state-court proceedings are at: what matters is that the existence of a pending state-court 

action unmistakably signals the state’s willingness and readiness to adjudicate the dispute.” 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 525 Filed 12/20/24 Page 4 of 8
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Id. at 1040.

In examining the history of the federal case, the “relevant inquiry . . . is the extent 

of the district court’s involvement in the merits.” Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. 

Owen, 873 F.3d 716, 728 (9th Cir. 2017). Factors to be considered include “the time that 

the district court has spent considering the case, any motions ruled on, any discovery, the 

number of conferences held, and any change in the parties’ positions as a result of the 

federal litigation.” Id. at 728–29. Although the length of time the federal action has been 

pending is a factor to be considered, “a case may remain in the ‘embryonic stage’ for a 

long time in certain circumstances.” Id. at 730.

In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, the Supreme Court held that 

“considerations of economy, equity, and federalism” counseled against Younger abstention 

where the district court had issued a preliminary injunction prior to initiation of the statecourt proceedings. 467 U.S. 229, 238 (1984). In Hoye v. City of Oakland, the Ninth Circuit

found Younger abstention inapplicable where, prior to the initiation of state criminal 

proceedings, the federal court had held multiple hearings and denied a motion for a 

temporary restraining order, and the defendant had amended an ordinance in response to 

the district court’s reservations about the ordinance’s constitutionality. 653 F.3d 835, 844 

(9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court noted that “by the time state 

proceedings began, the federal proceedings had been long pending,” and the district court’s 

“intervention in the case had resulted in a significant change in the relative positions of the 

parties.” Id.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that the R&R correctly assessed the proceedings in this 

action as of May 10, 2022, the date Greg Moore was indicted in state court. (See Doc. 520 

at 4.) As of that date, the parties had litigated the issue of the law enforcement investigatory 

privilege, and discovery was not far advanced due to the Court’s application of that 

privilege. (Id. (citing Doc. 74).) Plaintiffs had filed early motions for partial summary 

judgment but had withdrawn them without further briefing. (Id. (citing Docs. 167, 211); 

see also Docs. 100, 125.) Defendants had moved for summary judgment on the issue of 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 525 Filed 12/20/24 Page 5 of 8
- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

qualified immunity (Doc. 348), but Plaintiff had moved under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56(d) to defer briefing on the Motion (Doc. 353). In their Rule 56(d) Motion, 

Plaintiffs asserted that they had been denied “any meaningful discovery” due to the 

application of the law enforcement investigatory privilege. (Doc. 353 at 2.)

The unusual circumstances of this case—in particular, the limitations on discovery 

caused by application of the law enforcement investigatory privilege—kept this litigation 

confined to an embryonic stage despite active litigation and the passage of a significant 

length of time. As of the date the state indictment was issued against Greg Moore, there 

had been no significant change in the relative positions of the parties resulting from this 

Court’s intervention, nor had there been any adjudication on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. 

Accordingly, the court agrees with the R&R’s finding that the state-court indictment 

against Greg Moore was issued before proceedings of substance on the merits had taken 

place in this case.1

C. Practical Effect of Enjoining State Proceedings

Plaintiffs argue that the presiding judge in Greg Moore’s state criminal proceedings 

“has deferred to the proceedings in this Court,” and that the state has represented that this 

Court’s decisions will not impact the state criminal proceedings. (Doc. 521 at 6-7.) 

Defendants dispute the accuracy of Plaintiffs’ characterization of the state proceedings and 

argue that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations to the state court make the need for Younger

abstention clear. (Doc. 524 at 7-10.)

The Court agrees with the R&R that a ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs’ 

constitutional claims in this case would have the practical effect of enjoining the state 

criminal proceedings against Greg Moore. Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims challenge the 

1 The Court also notes that, although a state indictment was not issued against Greg Moore 

until May 10, 2022, there was an open state criminal investigation against Plaintiffs at the 

time they filed the above-captioned matter, and Defendants have long taken the position 

that this lawsuit is a pretextual attempt by Plaintiffs to intervene in the state criminal 

proceedings. (See Doc. 23.) Applying Younger abstention here not only respectsthe state’s 

strong interest in administration of its criminal justice system but also avoids the possibility 

of encouraging individuals under state criminal investigation from racing to file civil 

lawsuits in federal court in an attempt to obtain federal adjudication of constitutional claims 

affecting their anticipated state criminal cases.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 525 Filed 12/20/24 Page 6 of 8
- 7 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

validity of the search warrants used to obtain evidence against Greg Moore for the state 

criminal case. If this Court were to rule on the constitutionality of the search warrants, it 

would interfere with the state court’s opportunity to assess the warrants’ validity in the first 

instance. See Gakuba v. O’Brien, 711 F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir. 2013) (federal court 

resolution of § 1983 claims arising from allegedly illegal searches, seizures, and detentions 

would interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings).

The Court finds that Younger abstention is appropriate and will adopt the R&R’s 

recommendation to stay these proceedings pending the conclusion of the state criminal 

proceedings against Plaintiff Greg Moore.

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 520) is accepted 

and adopted in full. Plaintiffs’ Objection (Doc. 521) is overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Proceedings 

(Doc. 512) is granted. The above-captioned action is stayed pending the conclusion of 

the state criminal proceedings against Plaintiff Greg Moore.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending Motions (Docs. 421, 510, 

516) are denied without prejudice and with leave to refile after the stay of this action is 

lifted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall notify the Court in writing 

within five (5) days of the conclusion of the state criminal proceedings against Greg 

Moore. The parties shall also file status reports every ninety (90) days from the date this 

Order is filed.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 525 Filed 12/20/24 Page 7 of 8
- 8 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action remains referred to Magistrate Judge 

Michael A. Ambri for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation, in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and 72.2.

Dated this 19th day of December, 2024.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 525 Filed 12/20/24 Page 8 of 8