NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR EDWARD EZOR, No. 19-55558
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-10260-JVS-AGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KATHERINE K. MADER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2020***
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Arthur Edward Ezor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from
his state criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal of an action as barred by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
*
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).
37 (1971). ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754,
758 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ezor’s action as barred under the
Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from
interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal action would
have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d
at 759 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases); Baffert v.
Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 617, 621 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth
exceptions to Younger abstention; a claimed constitutional violation “does not, by
itself, constitute an exception to the application of Younger abstention”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the
complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Zucco Partners, LLC
v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of
review and reasons for denying leave to amend).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as without merit Ezor’s contentions of judicial bias.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-55558