Gary Easley v. State of California , 425 F. App'x 583 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 29 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GARY D. EASLEY,                                  No. 08-16406
    Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:07-CV-00629-WBS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
    CALIFORNIA,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 8, 2011 **
    Before:        FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Gary D. Easley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    his habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    , and we
    affirm.
    *
    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).
    The government contends that dismissal of Easley’s petition was proper in
    light of the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 
    401 U.S. 37
     (1971).
    We agree. As a threshold matter, the government’s failure to raise the Younger
    argument in the district court does not prevent us from addressing it on appeal. See
    H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 
    203 F.3d 610
    , 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Younger
    abstention may be raised sua sponte at any point in the appellate process.”). In
    light of the ongoing state criminal proceedings at the time Easley filed his federal
    habeas petition, dismissal was appropriate under Younger. See Younger, 
    401 U.S. at 43-44
     (holding that on principles of federalism and comity, federal courts should
    abstain from intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent
    extraordinary circumstances).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    08-16406
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-16406

Citation Numbers: 425 F. App'x 583

Judges: Bybee, Farris, Leavy

Filed Date: 3/29/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023