WILLIAMS v. KING (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process claims arising from his detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under the Younger abstention doctrine. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings if all of the requirements for abstention are met, and no exception to abstention applies. See id. at 758-59 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases). We reject as without merit Williams’s contention that extraordinary circumstances render Younger abstention inapplicable in his case.

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

Williams’s motion for appointment of counsel and to consolidate cases (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied.

AFFIRMED.