Narrative Opinion Summary
Allan Penry appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action regarding child support payments enforced by the Thurston County Superior Court. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the dismissal de novo. The court affirms the district court’s decision, stating that it appropriately abstained from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over Penry's civil rights claims and correctly dismissed the case, referencing relevant case law. The disposition of this case is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases within the circuit, except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abstention from Exercising Jurisdiction in Civil Rights Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court abstained from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over Penry's civil rights claims, suggesting the appropriateness of abstention in certain civil rights contexts.
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court’s decision, stating that it appropriately abstained from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over Penry's civil rights claims.
Appellate Review under 28 U.S.C. § 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the district court’s dismissal of Penry's case, demonstrating the standard of review applied in appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the dismissal de novo.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case's disposition is not for publication and is subject to citation restrictions within the circuit, indicating limitations on the case's precedential value.
Reasoning: The disposition of this case is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases within the circuit, except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.