Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Lawrence T. Beck appeals pro se (1) the district court's denial of his motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction and (2) the district court's order staying his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292(a) (1), and we affirm.

In June 1989, Beck was arrested on charges of criminal trespass. In March 1990, while criminal proceedings against him were pending in the Seattle Municipal Court, Beck filed this civil rights action against five police officers, the City of Seattle, the Seattle Municipal Court, and a private party. Beck's complaint sought injunctive relief to stop the state court prosecution and damages. The district court denied Beck's motion for a preliminary injunction and stayed his action for damages pending resolution of the state court prosecution.

We reverse a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction only where the court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology Internat'l, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir. 1989). The abstention doctrine set forth Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prevents a federal court in most circumstances from interfering with criminal proceedings in state court. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2283. "Three requirements have evolved for proper invocation of Younger: (1) ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) implication of an important state interest in the proceedings; and (3) an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions in the proceedings." World Famous Drinking Emporium v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, " [b]ad faith prosecution or harassment make abstention inappropriate even where these requirements are met." Id. (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 47-49).

Here, the district court correctly denied Beck's requests for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction because (1) a criminal prosecution against him is ongoing in state court, (2) the criminal proceeding implicates important state interests, and (3) the state court proceedings provide an adequate opportunity for Beck to raise any federal questions. See id. Moreover, Beck's bare allegations of bad faith and harassment by the defendants are insufficient to make abstention inappropriate in this case. Finally, the district court properly stayed Beck's action for damages pending resolution of the state court prosecution.¹  Cf. Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 878 (9th Cir. 1990) (staying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages to allow prisoner to pursue state remedies), cert. denied sub nom., Bressman v. Farrier, 111 S. Ct. 1090 (1991).

AFFIRMED.²