Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01922/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01922-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Bradford D. Lund, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of

Arizona, in her official capacity; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1922-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and

motion for preliminary injunction. Both of these motions arise from a guardianship

established over Plaintiff in the superior court of Maricopa county. Based on Plaintiff’s

filings, it appears Joseph Boyle has been appointed Guardian Ad Litem for Plaintiff.

However, the current case is brought by counsel Jeff A. Shumway on Plaintiff’s behalf

against the Guardian Ad Litem and others. (Doc. 9-3 at 1.) 

It is clear from Plaintiff’s filings that the probate case in which Defendant Judge

Robert Myers appointed a guardian ad litem is still on-going. Plaintiff seeks to have this

Court intervene in that probate case and: 1) enjoin Defendant Boyle from taking any acting

in his capacity as guardian ad litem, 2) enjoin Defendant Boyle from participating in the

probate matter involving Plaintiff, 3) stay the discovery requests currently pending in the

probate case (Doc. 9-2, at 2) and, 4) terminate the guardianship (Doc. 6-5 at 1).

Case 2:11-cv-01922-JAT Document 12 Filed 10/07/11 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 -

The Younger abstention doctrine provides that federal courts are not to interfere with

pending state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). This

abstention doctrine applies “not only when the pending state proceedings are criminal, but

also when certain civil proceedings are pending, if the State’s interests in the proceeding are

so important that exercise of the federal judicial power would disregard the comity between

the States and the National Government.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 11

(1987); see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431

(1982) (“Younger v. Harris[], and its progeny espouse a strong federal policy against

federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary

circumstances.”).

Having read the motions in this case, the Court finds that the relief sought falls

squarely within the prohibition of Younger. Thus, the Court will deny the motions and the

request for a hearing. This denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the motions. If

Plaintiff re-files, Plaintiff must first address how this Court can intercede in a state court

proceeding without running afoul of Younger. Plaintiff shall also address whether Plaintiff

has exhausted all appellate remedies available in state court. Finally, if Plaintiff re-files,

Plaintiff must propose a bond amount. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 65. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and motion

for preliminary injunction (Docs. 6 and 9) are denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the Court has not considered the report

sought to be filed under seal, the report (lodged at Doc. 7) is stricken from the record. The

motion to seal (Doc. 8) is denied as moot (but the stricken document shall remain under seal).

DATED this 7th day of October, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01922-JAT Document 12 Filed 10/07/11 Page 2 of 2