E.T. ex rel. E.T. v. Cantil-Sakauye, 682 F.3d 1121

Plaintiffs are foster children in Sacramento County seeking relief for about 5,100 class members.
They allege crushing and unlawful attorney caseloads and excessive judicial caseloads violate federal and state due process and rights to effective counsel.
District court abstained from adjudicating the claims under O’Shea v. Littleton and Younger v. Harris.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an order mandating additional resources to meet caseloads per Judicial Council and National Association of Counsel for Children recommendations.
Named defendants include California Chief Justice as Judicial Council Chair, the Administrative Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge.
The panel amended the opinion, denied rehearing, and affirmed abstention and dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether abstention was proper under O’Shea and related authorities	Plaintiffs argue for declaratory relief on caseloads as appropriate	Defendants emphasize ongoing state proceedings and need to abstain	Abstention proper; district court affirmed
Whether declaratory relief would amount to an ongoing federal audit of state proceedings	Plaintiffs contend relief would address caseloads without broader intrusion	Defendants argue it would require intrusive review of many cases	Declaring caseloads unconstitutional would amount to ongoing federal audit; abstention maintained
Whether the district court’s abstention framework should be reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion	Plaintiffs rely on merits-oriented review	Defendants rely on abstention doctrine review	Standard of review would not change the result; abstention affirmed

O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974) (principles of federal abstention in state-administered matters)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1971) (abstention in state proceedings to avoid interference)
Los Angeles Cnty. Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1992) (declined to abstain when reviewing state bar statute; comity considerations noted)
Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1971) (declaratory relief can be intrusive like injunctive relief)
Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc; abstention considerations)
Luckey v. Miller, 976 F.2d 673 (11th Cir. 1992) (restraint on future detailed relief violates comity principles)
Kaufman v. Kaye, 466 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2006) (later challenges to federal remedy could disrupt state proceedings)