Cornel Jackson v. County of Madera, a Municipality of the State of California;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CORNEL JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF MADERA, a Municipality of
the State of California; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16920
D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00069-ADA-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
NOV 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16920
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 of 2 --