Joel W. Ellington, Dr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Nancy Becker, Judge; State of Nevada, Defendants-appellees, 981 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 981 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) Submitted Nov. 23, 1992. *Decided Dec. 7, 1992

Before SCHROEDER, FLETCHER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Joel W. Ellington appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court abstained from reviewing Ellington's claim pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1970). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court's dismissal of a section 1983 action under the Younger abstention doctrine. Keneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331 (9th Cir. 1992).

Barring exceptional circumstances, a federal court will not intervene in an ongoing state criminal prosecution. Younger, 401 U.S. at 37. Three requirements must be satisfied before a federal court can invoke the Younger abstention doctrine: (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. Keneally, 967 F.2d at 331. "When a case falls within the proscription of Younger, a district court must dismiss the federal action." Fresh Int'l Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 805 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, Ellington, facing state criminal prosecution in the state of Nevada, rejected court appointed counsel and moved the state trial court to allow him to represent himself. The state court denied his motion. Ellington filed his section 1983 action in the district court arguing that the state court's denial of his motion deprived him of his sixth amendment rights.

Ellington's action satisfies the three prongs necessary to invoke the Younger abstention doctrine: (1) he appeals a decision from an ongoing state criminal prosecution; (2) the criminal prosecution implicates an important state interest; and (3) the state criminal prosecution presents Ellington with an opportunity to raise the question of whether his sixth amendment rights were violated. See Keneally, 967 F.2d at 331. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Ellington's action.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Ellington's motion for oral argument is denied

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.