Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00624-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUFINA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00624-LJO-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS CASE AS BARRED BYYOUNGER v. 

HARRIS, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) 

 (Docs. 1, 6)

 21 DAY DEADLINE

INTRODUCTION

 Plaintiffs, Maria Olivia Rufina, Leonel Solorio, and Nancy Shaw, are currently 

proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint is disjointed and difficult to comprehend, it appears to allege a warrantless search and 

seizure without probable cause. (Doc. 1.) 

I. Findings

A. This Action is Barred by Younger v. Harris

Upon initial review, it was discovered that Plaintiffs’ allegations challenge a serious rules 

violation on which he was found guilty. (Doc. 1.) It further appears that, as of the filing of this 

action, Plaintiffs are out on bail awaiting criminal trial as they seek production of a “discovery 

pack” related to charges for which they were apparently taken into custody. (Id.) 

As such, Plaintiffs’ claims are not cognizable under § 1983 since the information 

Plaintiffs seek resulted in criminal charges in connection with ongoing criminal proceedings. See 

Case 1:16-cv-00624-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971) (reaffirming the long-standing 

principle that federal courts sitting in equity cannot, absent exceptional circumstances, enjoin 

pending state criminal proceedings). Under this principle, pending civil enforcement actions are 

“akin to” criminal proceedings, Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 604, 95 S.Ct. 1200 

(1975), and to suits challenging “the core of the administration of a State's judicial system,” 

Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 335, 97 S.Ct. 1211 (1977). 

On May 10, 2016, an order issued giving Plaintiffs thirty days to show cause ("OSC") 

why this action should not be dismissed as barred by Younger. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiffs have not 

responded to the OSC. 

In civil cases, Younger abstention "is appropriate only when the state proceedings: (1) are 

ongoing; (2) are quasi-criminal enforcement actions or involve a state's interest in enforcing the 

orders and judgments of its courts; (3) implicate an important state interest; and (4) allow litigants 

to raise federal challenges." See Readylink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 754 

F.3d 754, 758-59 (9th Cir. 2014) citing Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, ___U.S. ___, 134 

S.Ct. 584, 593-94 (2013); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2004). "If these 

'threshold elements' are met, we then consider whether the federal action would have the practical 

effect of enjoining the state proceedings and whether an exception to Younger applies." Id., citing 

Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 978, 983-84. "Each element must be satisfied, AmerisourceBergen Corp. 

v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2007), and the date for determining whether Younger 

applies is the date the federal action is filed, Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 969 n. 4." Id. 

The Complaint does not clearly state whether criminal proceedings are pending or have 

been resolved. It appears that Plaintiffs’ intent in filing this action is to gather information 

relative to pending criminal charges rather than to pursue claims under § 1983. 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs’ claims appear to seek discovery of information on pending criminal charges. 

As such, this action is not cognizable under § 1983. Younger, 401 U.S. 37. Accordingly, it is 

HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1983.

Case 1:16-cv-00624-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 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

3

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 21 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s 

Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00624-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 3