JOSE DECASTRO V. LVMPD, ET AL, No. 23-16089 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE DeCASTRO, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-16089 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00580-APG-EJY v. MEMORANDUM* LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; STATE OF NEVADA; BRANDEN BOURQUE; JASON TORREY; C. DINGLE; B. SORENSON; JESSE SANDOVAL; C. DOOLITTLE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Jose DeCastro appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 action * 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). alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review de novo the district court’s abstention determination under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2023). We affirm. The district court properly denied DeCastro’s request for a preliminary injunction because under the Younger abstention doctrine, the district court was required to abstain from interfering with DeCastro’s pending state court criminal proceedings. See id. at 1094 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention); Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 617, 621 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth exceptions to Younger abstention and concluding that 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 DeCastro’s motion for reconsideration because DeCastro failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration). AFFIRMED. 2 23-16089

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.