Grant Mandigora, individually v. the American Board of Pediatrics Inc

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-2632
__________
GRANT MANDIGORA, individually and as natural parents of A.M., a minor;
NEZILE MTHEMBU, individually and as natural parents of A.M., a minor,
Appellants
v.
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF PEDIATRICS INC; DR. GLADIBEL MEDINA,
in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as a contracted child abuse
pediatrician for the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
through its Administration for Children and Families
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-14682)
District Judge: Honorable Jamel K. Semper
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 8, 2026
Before: KRAUSE, RESTREPO, and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 8, 2026)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appellants Grant Mandigora and Nezile Mthembu filed a complaint in the District
Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to a child-welfare proceeding in
the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part. They named as
defendants the American Board of Pediatrics, Inc. (“ABP”), Dr. Gladibel Medina (“Dr.
Medina”), and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”).
Mandigora and Mthembu also moved for a preliminary injunction. The District Court
applied the Younger doctrine in denying the motion, concluding that it was bound to
abstain from issuing a ruling that would interfere with the Family Part case. See Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971). Mandigora and Mthembu appealed.1
We will vacate the District Court’s order and remand the matter for further
proceedings. In applying the Younger doctrine here, the District Court relied upon the
factors set forth in Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association,
457 U.S. 423, 433 (1982), which directed lower courts to abstain when (1) there are
ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate
important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to
raise federal claims. We have made clear, however, that district courts considering
Younger abstention must, as a threshold matter, determine whether the state-court
proceeding falls within one of the categories identified in Sprint Communications, Inc. v.
1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the District Court’s
interlocutory order denying the appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction. In its
order denying that motion, the District Court administratively terminated the case without
disposing of the complaint. This administrative closure had no jurisdictional
significance. See Penn W. Assoc., Inc. v. Cohen, 371 F.3d 118, 128 (3d Cir. 2004).
Therefore, the complaint remains pending in the District Court.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013); only then should a district court consider Middlesex’s
additional factors. See Malhan v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of State, 938 F.3d 453, 462 (3d Cir.
2019); see also Gonzalez v. Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor, 755 F.3d 176, 181 (3d
Cir. 2014) (“Sprint explicitly eschewed exclusive reliance on the three Middlesex
factors”). In Sprint, the Court held that abstention is appropriate in only “three
exceptional categories” of proceedings: (1) “state criminal prosecutions”; (2) certain
“civil enforcement proceedings,” and (3) “civil proceedings involving certain orders . . .
uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.”
Sprint, 571 U.S. at 72.
We add that the Younger abstention doctrine is applied on a claim-by-claim basis.
See Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2019). Therefore,
following remand, the District Court also should address whether the state proceedings
afford Mandigora and Mthembu an adequate opportunity to raise each of the claims that
they asserted in their complaint.

-- 3 of 3 --