Court Opinion

ID: 9521954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:16:05.473987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:08.676047
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I join the majority with respect to its holding that the district court correctly applied the Younger abstention doctrine. However, I dissent from both the majority’s decision to vacate one “aspect” of the district court’s order and its decision to remand this case to the district court. Before the district court and in his opening brief on appeal, the sole relief sought by Coleman was to be “discharged from ... confinement.” Thus, the issue of whether Coleman “may file another pretrial federal habeas petition seeking to enforce his speedy trial rights,” in the event that he were to “exhaust properly a Braden-like claim seeking an immediate trial in state court,” is not before us. Because this issue is not before us, I would decline to address it. See, e.g., City of Emeryville v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1251, 1258 n. 5 (9th Cir.2010) (explaining that where a party does not challenge a district court’s ruling as to an issue in its opening brief, “that issue is not before us on appeal”).