CORNEL JACKSON V. COUNTY OF MADERA, ET AL, No. 22-16920 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CORNEL JACKSON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-16920 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00069-ADA-EPG v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF MADERA, a Municipality of the State of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 14, 2023 ** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Cornel Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 982 n.19 (9th Cir. 2004) (Younger abstention). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as barred by the Younger abstention doctrine because Jackson’s state court criminal action is ongoing, those proceedings implicate important state interests, there is an adequate opportunity for Jackson to litigate his constitutional claims therein, and the relief requested would enjoin the ongoing state proceedings. See Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (listing the requirements for Younger abstention). The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s claims for damages because Jackson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for malicious prosecution. See Siebel v. Mittlesteadt, 161 P.3d 527, 530 (Cal. 2007) (listing the elements of malicious prosecution in California, including the requirement that the action “legally terminated in the plaintiff’s favor”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 919 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that malicious prosecution is cognizable under § 1983 if it is “conducted with the intent to . . . subject a person to a denial of constitutional rights” (citation omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 22-16920
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
