Big Sky Scientific LLC v. Jan M. Bennetts

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BIG SKY SCIENTIFIC LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAN M. BENNETTS, in her official
capacity as Ada County Prosecuting
Attorney; IDAHO STATE POLICE; ADA
COUNTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-35138
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00040-REB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Ronald E. Bush, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 28, 2019
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Big Sky Scientific LLC (Big Sky) challenges the district court’s denial of its
motion for a preliminary injunction. It argues that the district court erred in
FILED
SEP 04 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

concluding it was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claim that federal law
prohibits the seizure of a shipment of hemp it was transporting through Idaho from
Oregon to Colorado. Defendants Idaho State Police, Ada County, and Jan
Bennetts, the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney, argue that the district court abused
its discretion in not abstaining from this case under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971), because there is an in rem forfeiture proceeding pending in Idaho state
court in which Big Sky can raise its federal claims. We review for abuse of
discretion a district court’s abstention decision. McIntyre v. McIntyre, 771 F.2d
1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1985).
Younger abstention is appropriate when “(1) there is ‘an ongoing state
judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicates important state interests’; (3)
there is ‘an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional
challenges’; and (4) the requested relief ‘seeks to enjoin’ or has ‘the practical effect
of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882
F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp.
Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)) (alterations adopted).
We reverse the district court’s decision not to apply Younger abstention.
Our decision is based in part on (1) Defendants’ counsels’ representation at oral
argument that Idaho will immediately move to lift the stay in the in rem forfeiture
2

-- 2 of 3 --

action, and (2) the assumption that, apart from any criminal proceedings, the Idaho
District Court will proceed expeditiously with the in rem action, including Big
Sky’s challenge to Idaho’s interpretation of the federal Agricultural Improvement
Act of 2018 (known as the 2018 Farm Bill), and Big Sky’s Commerce Clause
claims. The panel will retain jurisdiction over further proceedings in this matter.
REVERSED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --