Opinion
21-16030
08-24-2022
T. MATTHEW PHILLIPS; ALI SHAHROKHI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VINCENT OCHOA, Clark County District Court Judge, Family Division; MATHEW HARTER, Clark County District Court Judge, Family Division; C AARON FORD, Nevada Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00483-APG-NJK
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
T. Matthew Philips and Ali Shahrokhi appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims related to a family court proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the application of abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs' action because, due to the Nevada Supreme Court's recent decisions to affirm plaintiffs' custody orders in which plaintiffs raised the same constitutional issues brought in this action, plaintiffs' claims are barred by issue preclusion. See Cook v. Harding, 879 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2018) (acknowledging that Younger abstention has been limited in civil cases but affirming dismissal on the basis of issue preclusion); Alcantara ex rel. Alcantara v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 321 P.3d 912, 916 (Nev. 2014) (elements of issue preclusion under Nevada state law).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).