Bryfogle v. Arizona Board of Regents

Full title: R. Charles BRYFOGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, a…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 21, 2001

13 F. App'x 538 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

13 Fed.Appx. 538 (9th Cir. 2001) R. Charles BRYFOGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, a body corporate 2020 N. Central Ave, Phx AZ and its subdivision University of Arizona and Department Steward Observatory; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-17027. D.C. No. CV-00-00419-WDB. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 21, 2001

Submitted June 11, 2001 ^*.

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona William D. Browning, District Judge, Presiding.

Page 539.

Before O'SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

R. Charles Bryfogle appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which alleged that decisions of a state court deprived him of various constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's decision to abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), see Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 780 (9th Cir.1997), and we review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Hexom v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 177 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order filed October 3, 2000.

We deny Bryfogle's motion to lift the stay filed May 3, 2001 as moot.

AFFIRMED.