Notice: This Summary Order May Not Be Cited As Precedential Authority, but May Be Called to the Attention of the Court in a Subsequent Stage of This Case, in a Related Case, or in Any Case for Purposes of Collateral Estoppel or Res Judicata. See Second Circuit Rule 0.23.josefina Del Valle Hernandez, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the New York City Law Department Corporation Counsel; Thecity of New York; Bonnie Bornstein; Allyson Piscitelli;eugene Borenstein; Edward I. Lieberman; Feliciadunn-jones, Defendants-appellees, 101 F.3d 1393 (2d Cir. 1996)

ORDER

We review the district court's denial of injunctive relief for abuse of discretion. Int'l Broth. of Teamsters v. Local Union No. 810, 19 F.3d 786, 789 (2d Cir. 1994). Since Hernandez's allegation that the state adoption proceeding is being conducted in bad faith was unsupported by the record, and since this case clearly meets the requirements for Younger abstention outlined in Hansel v. Town of Springfield, N.Y., 56 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 572 (1995), the district court was correct in ruling that the Younger doctrine prohibits the federal courts from enjoining the adoption proceeding. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Williams v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1275, 1282 (2d Cir. 1995). Nor could the district court issue an order awarding Hernandez custody of her sister's children, because, under Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923), the district court lacked jurisdiction to do so.

We have examined all of Hernandez's contentions and found them to be without merit. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernandez's request for injunctive relief, and its judgment is affirmed.