# C. Salazar v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 29, 2015 · 616 F. App'x 354

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3005576

## Case

- **Full name:** C. MacKey SALAZAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmond G. BROWN, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Governor of California; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 29, 2015
- **Citations:** 616 F. App'x 354
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Reinhardt, Leavy, Berzon
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3005576

## Opinion text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2015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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3005576. Public record. Not legal advice.