James Tate, Jr. v. Beverly Neyland, 485 F. App'x 861

Tate filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners and its members, challenging state regulatory proceedings.
The district court dismissed the action on Younger abstention grounds.
The state administrative proceeding against Tate began almost two years earlier, and a state court review was filed before or during the federal action.
The proceedings are judicial, ongoing, and involve an important state interest in regulating the medical profession.
Tate could raise federal constitutional claims in state proceedings, and a federal ruling could interfere with the state proceeding; damages were not sought, so dismissal without prejudice was appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Younger abstention applies to the §1983 action	Tate contends abstention was improper	State proceedings involve important interests and allow adequate federal-claims adaptation	Affirmed; Younger abstention applied and dismissal without prejudice

Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1982) (abstention and state proceedings analysis)
Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1986) (adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in state proceedings)
Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc approach to Younger abstention)
Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 1999) ( Younger abstention and state proceedings interest)
Fresh Int'l Corp. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 805 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1986) (background for state proceeding relevance)
Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (reaffirmation of abstention context)
Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (1971) (interference with state proceedings)
Woodfeathers, Inc. v. Wash. Cnty., 180 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 1999) (outcome on abstention)
Buckwalter v. Nev. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, F.3d (9th Cir. 2012) (slip op. language on state interest)