A fte r ex am in in g t h e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th at ora l arg u m en t is * unnecessary. Thus, the appeal i s s ubm i tte d on the bri ef s a nd the re cor d. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) . 

# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d Jul y 7, 20 08 * Deci ded J uly7, 20 08 B efo re R IC H A R D D . C U D A H Y , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N os. 06- 3750 , 07
- 1835 & 07
- 3087 ERI C TAYLOR an d GAI L TAYLOR, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts,
v. M ARI ON COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT N O . 1, et a l. D efend a nts -A pp ellees
. A pp eal s fro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o f I ndi an a, Indi an apo l i s Di vi si o n. N o . 1 : 06
- cv - 91 3- S EB- W TL Sarah Ev an s B arker, Judg e . O R D E R E ric and Ga ilTay lor fi led th ree notices of ap p eal, each cha ll en ging a d ifferent ord er, the l asto fwh i ch dis m i sse d thei r case with pr ej ud i ce forf ai l ure to pros ecute. W e di sm i ss th e firs t a p p ea l as m oo t a n d d ism iss th e s ec on d ap p ea l for lac k of a p p ella te j u ris d ict ion . In th e t h ird ap p ea l, w e a ffirm th e d ism iss al of t h eir ca se . NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N os. 06
- 3750 , 07
- 1835 , 07
- 3087 Page 2

This case beg an with a hear tbr eak i ng tr age dy. In 199 9 the two- yea r ol d dau ghtero f Eri c and Gai l Tayl orwand er ed onto thei r nei ghbor s’ pro pertyi n I nd i anapol i s, Ind i ana, ac ci den ta l l y fel l i nt o the s wi m m i ngpo o l, a nd ne ar l y dr o wned. S he s uffer ed se ve r e an d per m an en t br ain inj ur i es . T he Ta y l o r s, r epr es en te d b y a tt o r ne y s S amuelL. J ac o bs a nd W illiam W . H u rs t, su ed th eir n eig hb or s a n d th eir n eig hb or s’ in su re rs . T h ey se tt led for $ 5.3 m i l l i on in 200 3, wh i ch, acc or ding to the defendants, was the l i m i t o fthe nei ghbor s’ hom eowner’ s insurance pol i cy. S o o n the r ea fte r, the Ta y l o r s be ca m e co nv i nc ed th atthe i r l awy er s ha d fi l ed an d settled clai m s on th eir beh alfthat they did not d isclose to the Ta ylors. In 20 04 th e Ta ylors fi l ed a c om pla i nt i n M ar i on County Superi orCourtal l eging tha t J aco bs a nd H urst conspi re d w i th j ud i ci alo ffi ci al s a t the M ar i on County Superi orCourtto co nceal und i scl ose d cl ai m s a nd hi de set tl em ent fund s. W hi l e thei r case was pend i ng i n sta te cour t, the Tay l or s fi l ed a pr o se com pla i nt i n federa lco urt aga i nst J aco bs, H urst, M ar i on County S upe r i o r Co ur t, M ar i o n Co unty Ci r cui t Cou r t, a nd the Indi an a Cou r t o fAppea l s al l eg i ng that they vi ol ate d thei r ri ght t o du e pr oce ss. The Tay l or s’ unfo cused com pla i nt, after re peati ng the al l ega ti ons m ade ag ai nst J aco bs a nd H ursti n sta te cour t, al l ege d that the st ate cour ts att em pted to ai d Ja cobs and H ursti n conce al i ng se cre t s ett l em ent fund s by pr ev en tingthe Ta y l o r s f r o m o bt aini ngdi sc o ve r y . T he y f o l l o wed the i r c o m pl aintwi tha m oti on f ora prel i m i naryi nj uncti on a i m ed at enj oi ni ng pro ceedi ngs r ega rdi ng the award of att or ney fees i n the I nd i ana Courto fA pp eal s. That m oti on was deni ed, and thos e pr o ce eding s ha ve s i nc e co nc l ude d, a l th o ug h o th erpr o ce eding s ag ains t J ac o bs a nd Hur sti n st at e co ur t ar e st i l l o ng o i ng . T he Ta y l o r s ti m ely fi l ed a no ti ce o fa ppea l c ha l l en g i ngthe d en ial of t h e p re lim in ar y inj u n c tio n . The defe nd ants then m ove d to dism i ss the a cti on. Beca use the Tayl or s co uld not re p re se n t t h eir ch ild re n p ro se , N a vin v. P a rk R idg e Sch . D ist . 64 , 270 F.3d 114 7, 1149 ( 7th Cir. 2001 ) , the dist ri ct c ourto rder ed that counselfi l e a n appearance o n behal fo fthe chi l dren o r th e i r c l a i ms w o u l d b e d i s mi s s e d
. T h e c o u r ta l s o o r d e r e d th e T a y l o r s t o c l a r i fy w h a tc l a i ms they ass er ted per sonal l y. The Tay l or s then fi l ed a r esponse , ar gui ng tha t they s houl d be ab l e to pr o ce ed pr o s e o n b eh al fo fthe i r c hi l dr en . In a n o r dere nt i tl ed “En try Co nc erni ng Se l ecte d M att er s, ” the di str i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d any “c l ai m s fori nj uncti ve re l i efwh i ch d up li cate clai m s asserte d i n an y pe nd ing law su it in th e I nd iana sta te cou rts” u nd er Yo un ger v. Harris , 401 U .S. 37(19 71 ). T h e c ou rtals o e x p lain ed th at “n o p ar tia l fina l j u d gm en t s h all issue at th is ti m e as to the claim s resolved i n th is entry” an d i ns tead i ns tru cted the T aylors to cla rify w h at, i f an y, cla im s re m ain ed
. T h e c ou rtw ar n ed th e T ay lors th at if th ey ag ain f ai l ed to co m plywith the co urt’ s di re cti ve, thei r case would be dism i sse d. Instea d of r es po ndi ngt o the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s o r der, the Ta y l o r s fi l ed a no ti ce o fa ppea l c ha l l en g i ngthe “E n tr y C on c er n in g Se lec te d M at te rs .”N os. 06
- 3750 , 07
- 1835 , 07
- 3087 Page 3

A fterthe Tayl or s f ai l ed to r espond to the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rder, the cour t di sm i sse d thei r case with pr ej ud i ce “ as abandoned and as a sa ncti on f orthe pla i nti ff’ s f ai l ure to com p ly w ith th e cou rt’s order regard ing the de velop m en t of th is action.” Th e cou rt poi nted out that the Tay l or s f ai l ed to r espond to two co urt or ders see ki ng cl ar i fi cati on o f th eir cla im s a n d th at th e c ou rth ad w ar n ed th em th at a failu re to res p on d w ou ld res u lt in dism i ssa l
. The Tay l or s then fi l ed a thi rd not i ce o fappeal, thi s t i m e cha l l engi ng the fi nal dism i ssa l o fthei r case . W e co nsol i dated al l thr ee ofthe Tayl or s’ appeal s a nd r evi ew them now i n the or der th atthe y wer e fi l ed. We l ac kj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r the Ta y l o r s’ a ppea l fr o m the o r derde ny i ng th eir p re lim in ar y inj u n c tio n be c au se th at ap p ea l is m oo t. O ri on Sales, Inc. v. Em erson Ra dio C o rp . , 14 8 F . 3d 840, 84 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( “[ R]e vi ew o fa prel i m i naryi nj uncti on that has beco m e m oo t would r un af oulo fthe const i tuti onalco m m and that l i m i ts our j uri sdic ti on t o ‘cases’ an d ‘controve rsies. ’“ ( qu oting U . S. C O NST . ar t. I I I, § 2 ) ) . T he pr o ce edingtha t th e T a y l o r s mo v e d t o e nj o i n wa s t e r mi n a t e d o n Ap r i l 1 2 , 2 0 0 7, a n d th e r e i s n o r e l i e fth a twe c ou ld gra n t t h e T ay lors on ap p ea l. T h e firs t a p p ea l, th er efo re , m u st be d ism iss ed as m oo t. Se eSt . John’s U ni t e d Chur ch of Chr i s tv. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 502 F.3d 61 6, 62 6 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). W e a l so l ack j uri sdic ti on o verthe appeal fro m the “Entry Concerni ng S el ecte d M att er s” because i t i s a n i m perm i ssibl e inter l ocuto ryappeal
. Our j uri sdic ti on i s l i m i ted to appe al s f r o m “ fi na l de ci si o ns ” i n the di st r i ctc o ur t, wi thc er ta i n e xc ept i o ns no t r el ev an t here
. 2 8 U.S . C. § 1 291 ; D ub i cz v. Com m onwe al t h Edi s on Co. , 377F.3d 78 7, 79 0 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). H er e, the dist ri ct c ourtdel iber ate l y r efra i ned f ro m ente ring an or der o ffi nal j ud gm ent o n th e di smi ss ed cl ai m s i n o r dert o g i ve the Ta y l o r s an o th erc ha nc e to c l ar i fy the i r c l ai m s, a nd “or ders that speci fi cal l y c onte m pla te furtheract i vi ty i n the dist ri ct c ourtar e g ener al l y no t fi nal
. ” Se eTrs . of

thePe ns i on, W

e l f are, an d Vac at i on Fr i ngeBe ne f i tFu nds of

IBE W Lo ca l 70 1 v . P yram id Elec. , 22 3 F . 3d 459, 46 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( i nter nal ci tat i on a nd quotat i on m ar ks om itt ed ). W e t h er efo re lac k jur isd ict ion ov er th e T ay lors ’ se c on d ap p ea l. W e nev er thel ess r each the m er i ts ofthe ar gum ents i n the Tayl or s’ se cond appeal b ec au se th ey are su b su m ed int o th e m er its of th eir ap p ea l of th e fin al or d er d ism iss in g t h eir c as e. Se eAm e r i ca n Nat’ l Bank a nd Tru s tCo. of Chi cago v . Equ i t ab l eLi

f eAs s uranc eSo c’y of

the U nited Sta tes , 40 6 F . 3d 867, 87 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( hol ding that appeal s o ffi nal deci si ons can includ e alli nt erlocuto ry de cisions of th e cou rt that hav e not be com e m oot). Th e Ta ylors ar g ue tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed when, b as ed o n Yo un ger abst enti on, i t decl i ned to hear an y of t h e c laim s s ee kin g t o e nj oin on go in g s ta te co u rtp ro c ee d in gs . Yo un ger abst enti on “r efl ects Congr ess ’ s ‘ desi re to per m i t s tat e co urts to tr y s tat e ca ses fre e fro m i nter fer ence by federa l co urts [ . ] ’ ” See Stro m a n R eal ty, Inc . v. M a rtinez , 50 5 F . 3d 658, 66 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( quoti ng Yo un ger, 40 1 U.S . at43 ) . Younge r abst enti on i s a pp ro pri ate wh en o ngoing st ateN os. 06
- 3750 , 07
- 1835 , 07
- 3087 Page 4

co ur t pr o ce eding s ar e “( 1) j udi ci ali n n atur e, ( 2) i nv o l ve i m po r ta nts ta te i nt er es ts , a nd ( 3) pr o vi de ana dequa te o ppo r tu ni tyt o r ai se the fede r alc l ai m s, a s l o nga s ( 4) no excepti onalci rcum sta nces exi st that w oul d m ake abs tenti on inapp ro pri ate . ” Id.; see a lso M iddle sex C ounty E thics C om m . v. Ga rde n StateBa r A ss ’n , 45 7 U.S . 42 3, 43 2 ( 1982 ) . W e r evi ew th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ism iss al of c laim s o n ab st en tio n gro u n d s d e n ov o. St r om an , 50 5 F . 3d at 662. T he Tay lors argu e tha t the first tw o pron gs of Yo un gera r e no t m etb ec au se the on go in g s ta te co u rtp ro c ee d in gs are civ il p ro c ee d in gs be tw ee n tw o p riv at e litig an ts . T h is ar gu m en t is u n p er su as ive . Fir st, a law su it filed in a st at e c ou rtis u n d isp u ta b ly jud icia l in nature , r ega rdl ess o fthe parti es i nvol ved. S eco nd , the ongo i ng st ate pro ceedi ngs invol ve, an i m port ant s tat e inter est, nam el y, the sta te’ s inter esti n adj ud i cating cl ai m s a gainst I ndi an a l awy er s. F ur th er m o r e, the c o ur t g av e th e Ta y l o r s ampl e o ppo r tu ni tyt o c l ar i fy a ny cl ai m s that would noti nter fer e with the sta te cour t pr oce edi ngs, and they f ai l ed to do s o. T he Tay lors also clai m that the th ird p rong of Yo un ger w as not m et because the sta te co ur t pr o ce eding s ar e pat en tly unf ai r . T he Ta y l o r s, ho wev er, b ea r the b ur deno fs ho wi ng they w er e unabl e t o prese nt the i r const i tuti onalcl ai m s in sta te cour t, and theyhave f ai l ed to ex p lain h ow th ey w er e b ar re d from d oin g s o. H or n v . Ci ty of Chi cago , 86 0 F . 2d 700, 70 3 n .5 (7t h C ir. 19 88 ); se e also Pennzo il Co . v. Texaco , Inc. , 481 U .S. 1, 14 (19 87 ). T o th e e x t e n tth a tth e T a y l o r s h a d a n y c l a i ms l e fta ft e r th e d i s mi s s a l o fth e i r c l a i ms for inju n c tiv e re lief ag ain st th e s ta te co u rt, th ey ab an d on ed th em for fa ilu re to p ro se c u te . W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l o fa case f orf ai l ure to pros ecute und erthe abuse of d isc re tio n st an d ar d
. Jam e s v. M cDonal d’s Corp. , 4 1 7F . 3 d 6 7 2 , 6 8 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We presum e that the di str i ct c ourtact ed re aso nabl y unl ess i t i s pl ai n that the di sm i ssa l was a m i sta ke orthe cour t di d not co nsi der f acto rs “e sse nti alto the exer ci se ofso und di scr eti on. ” Id. ( citation an d i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). H ere the cou rt dism issed the T aylor’s c om p lain t a fte r re p ea te d ly a sk in g t h em to cla rify th eir cla im s a n d sp ec ify w h at cla im s, if an y, wer e i n the i r na m es o nl y . T hi s r eque stwas pe r fec tly r ea so nabl e g i ve n the c o nfus i ng nature o fthe Tayl or s’ co m pla i nt. The Tay l or s were re cal ci tr ant, ar gui ng o nl y that they shoul d be a l l owed to co nti nue to r epres ent thei r chi l dren pro se and nevergi vi ng a substa nti ve re sponse to the c ourt ’ s r equests . In f act, afterthe cour t’ s s eco nd o rderf or clarification, th e Ta ylors did n ot resp ond at all
. Furth erm ore, th e cou rt w arn ed the T aylors th at a fai lure to resp ond to i ts requ est w ou ld resu lt in a d ism issal w ith p rej ud ice. Th e cou rt d id n otab u se its d isc re tio n w h en it th en follow ed th ro u gh w ith th at w ar n in g. Se eRob i ns on v. D oe, 272 F.3d 921 , 924 (7th C ir. 2001). W e the refore DISM I SS the ap p eal ( N o. 06-3750) from the d en ialof th e prelim inary i nj unc ti o n a s m o o t; we DI S M I S S the a ppea l ( N o . 0 7- 18 35 ) fr o m the “ Ent r y Co nc erni ngN os. 06
- 3750 , 07
- 1835 , 07
- 3087 Page 5

S el ec te d M at te r s” f o r l ac ko fa ppel l at e j ur i sdi ct i o n; a nd we AFF I RM the di smi ss alo fthe c as e (N o. 07 -30 87 ).