Teresa Bloodman v. Rhonda Wood, No. 12-3820 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Dismissal affirmed, but modified to be without prejudice. [ June 21, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3820 ___________________________ Teresa Lynette Bloodman lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Rhonda Wood, Circuit Court Judge for the Twentieth Judicial District of Arkansas, in her official and individual capacity; Cody Hiland, Individually and in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District of Arkansas; Joan Shipley, Individually and in her official capacity as Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District of Arkansas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: June 17, 2013 Filed: June 24, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Teresa Bloodman appeals the district court s1 with-prejudice dismissal of her civil complaint. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that abstention would be appropriate under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). See Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 892-93 (8th Cir. 2010) (Younger abstention doctrine provides that federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction when (1) there is ongoing state proceeding, (2) which implicates important state interests, and (3) there is adequate opportunity to raise relevant federal questions in state proceeding). Accordingly, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, see Anderson v. Schultz, 871 F.2d 762, 766 (8th Cir. 1989) (dismissal without prejudice is appropriate where court abstains under Younger), and affirm the dismissal as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
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.
