Jou v. Schmidt
Docket: No. 04-16838
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 27, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Dr. Emerson Jou appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint based on Younger v. Harris abstention principles. The appeal is under the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. 1291, and the review of Younger abstention is conducted de novo, while the denial of Jou's motion to amend his complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Younger abstention applies when three criteria are met: (1) pending state judicial proceedings, (2) the state proceedings involve significant state interests, and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity for the federal plaintiff to litigate constitutional claims. Jou does not contest that he initiated state administrative proceedings before filing federally. The court recognizes that regulating the insurance industry constitutes an important state interest. Jou challenges the adequacy of state court review for constitutional claims, arguing that Hawaii law prevents such claims from being adjudicated in administrative settings. However, the court finds that constitutional claims can be raised in state judicial reviews of administrative proceedings, which satisfies the third prong of Younger. Jou bears the burden to show any barriers to raising his claims in state court, which he fails to do. Additionally, Jou's argument that Younger violates a timeliness requirement set forth in Gibson v. Berryhill is dismissed, as the Gibson case did not focus on timeliness, and Jou's cases are currently progressing through the state court system. Regarding the motion to amend his complaint, the court states that while amendments should generally be permitted, they can be denied if they would be futile. Jou’s proposed amendments do not challenge the applicability of Younger abstention to his case. The district court's dismissal of Jou's case under Younger abstention and the denial of his motion to amend are affirmed. This disposition is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in court except as permitted by circuit rules.