WILLIAM HOLDNER V. JOHN KROGER, No. 12-36090 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM F. HOLDNER, an individual, DBA Holdner Farms, No. 12-36090 D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01159-PK Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. JOHN KROGER, Attorney General of Oregon, in his individual and his official capacity; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. William F. Holdner, dba Holdner Farms, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his declaratory judgment action arising from the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Oregon Department of Agriculture’s regulation of Holdner’s cattle ranch and Holdner’s subsequent criminal prosecution for violation of state water pollution statutes. We review de novo. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 982 n.19 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Holdner’s action as barred by the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings. See Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 975 (listing the requirements for Younger abstention and explaining that the doctrine applies to actions for declaratory relief); see also Wiener v. County of San Diego, 23 F.3d 263, 266 (9th Cir. 1994) (“To decide whether there was a pending state judicial proceeding within Younger, we focus on the status of the state court proceeding at the time of the district court’s decision rather than on its current status on appeal.”). We do not consider Holdner’s arguments regarding the federal land patent and exceptions to Younger abstention, because he raises them for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Holdner’s motion to remand, filed on August 19, 2014, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 12-36090
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.
