Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
SERGEY VOYCHUK,
2:05-CV-2007-MCE-GGH
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
15
Defendants.
16
----oo0oo---17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
///
28
///
For the
4
BACKGROUND
5
6
7
code violation.
10
11
vehicle chase.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
suspended license.
22
23
24
25
///
26
27
28
ANALYSIS
1
2
3
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), the
proceedings."
In Younger v.
10
11
457 U.S. 423, 431, 73 L. Ed. 2d 116, 102 S. Ct. 2515 (1982)).
12
13
14
15
16
17
Both Parties concede, and the Court concurs, that the first
18
19
bar.
20
21
22
23
24
abstention applies.
25
not only can assert his federal excessive force claim in the
26
27
p. 2.
28
Defendants.
Def. Reply,
For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with
v. Cal. Pub. Util. Commn, 196 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 1999);
see also Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 14, 95 L. Ed.
10
11
Gibson v.
(1973).
Defendants correctly observe that there are no procedural
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
peace officer.
20
21
22
23
24
In fact,
25
2
26
27
28
People v. Olguin, 119 Cal. App. 3d 39, 46 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).
of Younger is satisfied.
Id.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
federal claims.
Gilbertson,
18
19
20
21
U.S. 194, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001) (holding that
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
///
5
By
8
9
Id.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Id.
By
16
CONCLUSION
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 21, 2006
24
25
26
27
_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
6