FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 5, 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
PHILLIP C. ELLIS; HEIDI B. ELLIS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
No. 16-4031
(D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00212-TS)
RICHARD LEMONS, M.D.;
(D. Utah)
CHELSEA GRIFFIN; EMILY HELM,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before GORSUCH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
After Heidi and Phillip Ellis’s son was diagnosed with leukemia by a Utah
hospital, doctors grew concerned that the Ellises would not comply with
necessary medical treatment and they contacted the Utah Division of Child and
Family Services. Eventually, the state sought and won a protective order in state
court. Before the proceeding could conclude, however, the parties agreed to its
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order is not
binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
dismissal after the Ellises promised to continue their son’s treatment. But the
deal didn’t last. Soon the Ellises not only discontinued treatment, they filed this
§ 1983 suit in federal court against a doctor and state employees. In response and
days later, Utah initiated a new proceeding in state court to remove the Ellises’
son from their care.
When it came time to rule on the federal suit, the district court held that,
under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), it had to abstain from hearing the
Ellises’ request for an injunction given the presence of so closely related ongoing
state court proceedings. With respect to their request for damages, the court held
it barred by qualified immunity. The Ellises now ask us to reverse both these
rulings.
Before reaching the merits of those rulings, though, we pause to address a
jurisdictional matter. The defendants argue that the Ellises’ appeal to this court
was untimely. And it’s true that the Ellises, acting pro se, mistakenly filed an
“entry of appearance” with our court rather than a timely “notice of appeal.” But
the document identified the parties to the appeal, the case number, and the district
judge and, under these circumstances, it served as the “functional equivalent” of a
notice of appeal permissible under our precedents. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S.
244, 248-49 (1992); cf. Johnson v. Spencer, 25 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1994)
(unpublished table decision).
-2-
Even so, we don’t see how we might reverse. The Ellises first challenge
the district court’s abstention under Younger on the ground that no state
proceedings were ongoing at the time they filed this § 1983 action. After all, they
note, they filed their federal suit after Utah dismissed one state court action and
just before it started another. But be this as it may, the Supreme Court has held
that Younger abstention remains appropriate so long as a pending state court
proceeding exists before the federal district court begins its own “proceedings of
substance on the merits.” Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349 (1975). And it is
beyond dispute that condition is satisfied here: Utah instituted its latest suit just
days after the Ellises filed their federal suit and long before any proceedings on
the merits commenced in federal court on the Ellises’ claims. The Ellises cursory
argument that Utah has no important state interest in their son’s health is
similarly unavailing. Our court has repeatedly found that states have a
compelling interest in the welfare of children within their borders. See, e.g., PJ
ex rel. Jensen v. Wagner, 603 F.3d 1182, 1198 (10th Cir. 2010).
Alternatively, the Ellises ask us to overrule the district court’s qualified
immunity ruling on their damages claim. But beyond conclusory statements, their
briefs offer us no grounds for doing so. They fail to engage with the district
court’s careful analysis or the legal authority it cited, and without that much we
decline to reverse. See Brown v. Zavaras, 63 F.3d 967, 972 (10th Cir. 1995)
-3-
(“[E]ven pro se litigants must do more than make mere conclusory statements
regarding constitutional claims.”).
The defendants’ motion to seal is granted and the district court’s order is
affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-4-