Case Name: Douglas K. SKOKOS, Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT SMITH, Arkansas, doing business as Fort Smith Police Department; Bruce Rhoades, Sebastian County Prosecutor, in his official capacity, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-10
Citations: 68 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 02-3241
Parties: Douglas K. SKOKOS, Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT SMITH, Arkansas, doing business as Fort Smith Police Department; Bruce Rhoades, Sebastian County Prosecutor, in his official capacity, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 68
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
Douglas K. SKOKOS, Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT SMITH, Arkansas, doing business as Fort Smith Police Department; Bruce Rhoades, Sebastian County Prosecutor, in his official capacity, Appellees.
No. 02-3241.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2003.
Decided July 10, 2003.
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Douglas K. Skokos (Skokos) appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Skokos's motion based on his failure to meet the factors set out in Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc). See Bandog, Inc. v. Jack's Tire & Oil, Inc., 190 F.3d 924, 926 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (standard of review). We reject Skokos's arguments: (1) it was not improper for the court to consider the applicability of Younger abstention in assessing Skokos's likelihood of success on the merits under Dataphase, cf. Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 113 (court's approach to issue of success on merits must be flexible enough to encompass particular circumstances of each case), (2) the district court did not err in abstaining, although the pending state action was filed eleven days after the federal ease was filed, cf. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975) (Younger applies when state criminal proceedings are initiated against federal plaintiffs after federal complaint is filed, but before substantial proceedings on the merits have taken place in federal court), and (3) the district court did not improperly refuse to consider relevant evidence or make unsupported factual findings, see Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d 811, 819 (1st Cir.1988) (evidentiary hearing is not needed in cases depending solely on legal issues).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Mag istrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).