Case Name: Jo Anne GREENE; Richard Greene; grandparents and sole temporary managing conservators, In re Interest of ECL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; Kent Ellis, Honorable, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-13
Citations: 166 F. App'x 736
Docket Number: No. 05-20238
Parties: Jo Anne GREENE; Richard Greene; grandparents and sole temporary managing conservators, In re Interest of ECL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; Kent Ellis, Honorable, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 166
Pages: 736–737

Head Matter:
Jo Anne GREENE; Richard Greene; grandparents and sole temporary managing conservators, In re Interest of ECL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; Kent Ellis, Honorable, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-20238.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 2006.
Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The district court correctly abstained, as it was required to do under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). See also, e.g., Huffman v. Pursue, 420 U.S. 592, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975); Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 52 L.Ed.2d 486 (1977); Texas Ass'n of Business v. Earle, 388 F.3d 515, 519 (5th Cir.2004). None of the exceptions to Younger abstention is present or even claimed. Appellants had and have ample opportunity to present their federal claims in the state proceeding. See, e.g., Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977). It is immaterial that appellants do not seek to enjoin the entire state court proceedings but merely to control the decision of one matter therein. See Williams v. Rubiera, 539 F.2d 470, 473 (5th Cir.1976); Ballard v. Wilson, 856 F.2d 1568, 1570 (5th Cir.1988).
The decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.