Richard Lee Green v. Dinh Hoang Phuong

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD LEE GREEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DINH HOANG PHUONG,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-35146
D.C. No. 3:20-mc-00011-TMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Richard Lee Green appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action seeking to enforce an arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 201.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
abstention determination under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ReadyLink
* 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
JAN 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-35146
Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Green’s action as barred under the
Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from
interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal action would
have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d
at 759 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases); see also
Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 79 (2013) (identifying the
characteristics of civil enforcement actions subject to the Younger abstention
doctrine).
Even assuming that the New York Convention of 1958 applies, it does not
require that Green’s action to enforce an international arbitration award be brought
in federal court, especially where, as here, the state court had already conducted
trial proceedings before Green raised the issue of arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 205
(“Where the subject matter of an action or proceeding pending in a State court
relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention, the
defendant or the defendants may, at any time before the trial thereof, remove such
action or proceeding to the district court of the United States for the district and
division embracing the place where the action or proceeding is pending.”
(emphasis added)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-35146
We reject as without merit Green’s contentions that the arbitration award
constituted a res judicata determination and that the district court improperly
interfered with the docket records.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Green’s motion to accept addendums (Docket Entry No. 10) is granted. All
other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --