Case Name: Carroll Steven COOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda ETLING; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-29
Citations: 43 F. App'x 75
Docket Number: No. 01-17044
Parties: Carroll Steven COOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda ETLING; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 43
Pages: 75–75

Head Matter:
Carroll Steven COOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda ETLING; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-17044.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2002 .
Decided July 29, 2002.
Before: BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Cooks’s motion for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Carroll Steven Cooks appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 claims against social workers employed by the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
Cooks is essentially attempting to reverse prior state juvenile court custody determinations, therefore the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891-92 (9th Cir.1986). To the extent Cooks's claims may interfere with any ongoing state judicial proceedings regarding the placement of Cooks's son, Younger abstention applies. See H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (applying Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), to section 1983 challenge of child custody orders).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.