NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WADE ROBERTSON, No. 18-16304
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01724-JD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RICHARD A. HONN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Wade Robertson, a disbarred California attorney, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his
state bar disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 982 n.19 (9th Cir. 2004)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Robertson’s claims requesting
injunctive relief arising out of the then-pending California State Bar disciplinary
proceedings as barred by the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts
are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings. See
Hirsh v. Justices of Supreme Court of State of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 712-15 (9th Cir.
1995) (listing the requirements for Younger abstention and dismissing action
arising from state bar disciplinary proceedings as barred by the Younger abstention
doctrine). Contrary to Robertson’s contention, none of the exceptions to the
Younger abstention doctrine apply.
The district court did not err in declining to consider for reasons of comity
Robertson’s claim seeking to vacate the judgment of sister courts. See FDIC v.
Aaronian, 93 F.3d 636, 639 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Although the registering court has
wide discretion to entertain a challenge to the underlying judgment, such motions
are disfavored. Registering courts generally prefer litigants to bring motions for
postjudgment relief in the rendering court.”); see id. (“Courts of appeal review
with deference a registering court’s decision to defer to the rendering court, if they
review them at all.”).
Robertson’s, Cartinhour’s and the State Bar defendants’ requests for judicial
notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 40, and 46) are granted.
2 18-16304
Robertson’s motion to strike Volume 2 of Cartinhour’s Supplemental
Excerpts of Record (Docket Entry No. 54) is denied.
Robertson’s motion to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 63) is
granted in part. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief submitted at Docket
Entry No. 64. The motion is denied in all other respects.
Robertson’s motion for reconsideration of the July 31, 2019 clerk order
(Docket Entry No. 70) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-16304