We Are America/Somos America Coalition of Arizona v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors , 386 F. App'x 726 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WE ARE AMERICA/SOMOS No. 09-15281
AMERICA COALITION OF
ARIZONA et al., D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02816-RCB
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Robert C. Broomfield, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 9, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction under
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), to consider the claims of the six plaintiffs
who are Mexican nationals: A federal court decision would improperly interfere
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
page 2
with the state criminal proceedings that had already begun against them. See
Woodfeathers, Inc. v. Wash. County, 180 F.3d 1017, 1020 (9th Cir. 1999).
Arizona has an important interest in enforcing its criminal statutes, and it’s not
“readily apparent” that federal law preempts Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319 or
Maricopa County’s enforcement policy. See id. at 1021. The Mexican national
plaintiffs also have an adequate opportunity to litigate their constitutional claims in
the state court proceedings. See id. at 1020–21.
The district court erred, however, in concluding that Younger abstention
barred it from considering the organizational and taxpayer claims. Those plaintiffs
weren’t parties to the state court proceedings, and they’re not sufficiently
intertwined with the plaintiffs who were parties to trigger Younger. See Doran v.
Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 928–29 (1975); Green v. City of Tuscon, 255 F.3d
1086, 1099–1100 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), limited on other grounds, Gilbertson v.
Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 968–69 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). On remand, the district
court must still determine whether the organizational and taxpayer plaintiffs have
standing to pursue their claims.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
No costs.