MICHAEL WILLIAMS V. AUDREY KING, No. 18-15265 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-15265 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01253-DAD-MJS v. MEMORANDUM* AUDREY KING, Executive Director, Coalinga State Hospital; COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process claims arising from his detention. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under the Younger abstention doctrine. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings if all of the requirements for abstention are met, and no exception to abstention applies. See id. at 758-59 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases). We reject as without merit Williams’s contention that extraordinary circumstances render Younger abstention inapplicable in his case. We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). Williams’s motion for appointment of counsel and to consolidate cases (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 18-15265

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.