Case Name: Keith L. DRUNASKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-28
Citations: 380 F. App'x 698
Docket Number: No. 08-16316
Parties: Keith L. DRUNASKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 698–699

Head Matter:
Keith L. DRUNASKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16316.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed May 28, 2010.
Keith L. Drunasky, Litchfield Park, AZ, pro se.
Shelly L. Zeise, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for defendants-appellees.
Susan Ann Potts, Chandler, AZ, pro se.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Keith L. Drunasky appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging constitutional violations in connection with state child support enforcement proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sacks v. Office of Foreign Assets Control, 466 F.3d 764, 770 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Drunasky's action under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), because the state family court proceedings are still ongoing, implicate important state interests, and provide an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims. See H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir.2000) (abstention required where child custody proceedings were still ongoing).
Drunasky's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.