The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
C. MACKEY SALAZAR, No. 13-16488
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01727-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDMOND G. BROWN, Jr., in his official
capacity as Governor of California; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
C. Mackey Salazar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in
connection with pending state administrative proceedings. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d
965, 982 n.19 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We may affirm on any ground supported
by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we
affirm.
Dismissal of Salazar’s action was proper because it was subject to abstention
under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). See ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v.
State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth
requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases). Because Salazar’s action was
barred under Younger, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
without leave to amend. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26
(9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[a] district
court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be
futile”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16488