Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00624-2/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-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY 

YOUNGER v. HARRIS, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

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. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is 

disjointed and difficult to understand, but it appears that they complain of a warrantless search 

and seizure without probable cause. 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.1 

Plaintiffs’ claims are not cognizable under § 1983 if the information Plaintiffs seek 

resulted in criminal charges in connection with ongoing criminal proceedings. See 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” 

 

1

The allegations in the complaint are so convoluted that the Court is unable discern whether all three of the Plaintiffs 

were taken into custody.

Case 1:16-cv-00624-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 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

2

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). 

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 and/or 

ongoing. It appears that Plaintiff's intent in filing this action is to gather information relative to 

pending criminal charges rather than to pursue claims under § 1983. Accordingly, it is HEREBY 

ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiffs shall 

show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed as barred by Younger v. Harris, 

401 U.S. at 43-54, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971).

The failure to respond to this order will result in recommendation that this action be 

dismissed, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00624-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2