Younger V. Harris Abstention Doctrine

649 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 218 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Holcomb v. Lake Cnty. Cir. Court
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-13
  Federal courts cannot review state court proceedings or judgments due to abstention doctrines and lack of jurisdiction.
• Hunt v. Castro
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-02-13
• Jordan v. Flagler Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-31
  The federal court dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice.
• Harrington v. Veritext, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-29 ·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that it has subject matter and personal jurisdiction and that no abstention doctrine applies, thus the motion to remand should be denied.
• Henderson v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-28
  The court denied the plaintiff's motions to alter the judgment and for copies, finding no grounds for reconsideration and that further amendment or appeal in forma pauperis would be futile or not in good faith.
• Bienaime v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-14
  The court granted the motions to dismiss because the Second Amended Complaint was a "shotgun pleading" that failed to comply with Rule 8(a)(2).
• Urban v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-08
  A federal court cannot entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis to challenge a state criminal judgment, and federal courts should abstain from intervening in pending state criminal proceedings absent specific exceptions.
• Nicholson v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-23
  The court held that a federal court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Henderson v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-10
  The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding that abstention under Younger v. Harris was required due to a pending state proceeding and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under federal law.
• Wilson v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-06
  Billy Ray Wilson, a state jail inmate, filed a motion for de novo review in federal court seeking to challenge four pending state court cases. The federal district court dismissed the action, finding it lacked jurisdiction and applying the Younger abstention doctrine, which prohi
• Prouty v. Warden, Lee Cnty. Jail
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-04
  The court held that a pretrial detainee cannot seek habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and relief under § 2241 is barred by the Younger abstention doctrine and failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Green v. Fla. State Disbursement Unit
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-04
  The federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case because it involves issues that are either reviewable state court judgments or fall under the domestic relations exception.
• Bienaime v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-15
  The court granted Defendant Murray's motion to stay all deadlines and discovery because her motion to dismiss appeared clearly meritorious and case dispositive.
• Bienaime v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-29
  The court granted the Department of Children and Families' motion to stay discovery and all deadlines as to that defendant, finding its motion to dismiss appeared clearly meritorious and case dispositive.
• State of Ga. v. Still
  11th Cir.· 2024-10-24
  Three Georgia Republicans nominated as electors for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election—David Shafer, Shawn Still, and Cathleen Latham—sought to remove their state criminal prosecutions for election interference to federal court under the federal-officer removal statut
• Allston v. Fla. Dep't of Revenue
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-21
  The court recommends granting in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing the complaint with leave to amend.
• Jordan v. Flagler Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-18
  The federal court dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus because it improperly sought to interfere with pending state criminal proceedings.
• Gabriel v. Bogaert
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-02
  The court recommended granting the application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
• Fiedler v. Stacy
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-30
  The court held that Younger abstention applies to the plaintiffs' claims, requiring dismissal of injunctive relief claims and staying monetary damages claims.
• Crosby v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-27
  The court held that a federal court should not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, and that claims must be exhausted in state court.
• Hastings v. McNeil
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-16
  The court held that a federal court should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings under the Younger doctrine when state remedies are available and no extraordinary circumstances exist.
• K&W Prop. Grp., LLC v. City of Temple Terrace
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-03
  The Court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for selective enforcement under the Equal Protection Clause because the proposed comparator property was not similarly situated and intentional discrimination was not plausibly alleged.
• Wood v. Hawkin
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to various immunity doctrines and the inability of certain named defendants to be sued, warranting dismissal with leave to amend.
• McNichols v. Pemberton
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-26
  The court held that it must abstain from hearing the case under the Younger doctrine because the plaintiff's claims are intertwined with pending state criminal proceedings.
• Graham v. Torres
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-10
  The court held that a federal court must abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings and that judicial and prosecutorial immunity bars claims against state officials for actions taken in those proceedings.
• King v. State
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-07-01
  A federal district court dismissed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241 filed by a petitioner against the State of Florida, finding that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and that Younger abstention doctrine barred federal jurisdiction.
• Hamilton v. Ardon
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-06-25
  The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for false arrest and was subject to dismissal.
• DeMariano v. Sanders
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-06
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine precludes federal courts from enjoining pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.
• Malandrino v. Christmas
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-06-05
  The court held that it must abstain from hearing a civil-rights complaint when it interferes with ongoing state criminal proceedings and child custody matters, as no exceptions to the Younger abstention doctrine apply.
• Johnson v. State of Fla. (Hendry)
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-05
  The court held that a pretrial detainee is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief under § 2254 or § 2241 without exhausting state remedies and that abstention principles apply.
• Culmer v. JSO Sheriffs Dep't
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-04 ·via Younger Abstention
  The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to meet federal pleading standards and was deficient in multiple respects, requiring an amended complaint.
• Norfleet v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-03 ·via Younger V. Harris
  A pretrial detainee cannot seek federal habeas relief under § 2254, and relief under § 2241 is denied due to unexhausted claims and principles of abstention.
• Evans v. Rozas
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-09
  The court held that it must abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings, staying the federal case until those proceedings conclude.
• Vega v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-06
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is dismissed.
• Fernandez v. Puentes
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-05-06
  The court held that federal courts must abstain from hearing a civil-rights complaint that is inextricably bound up with an ongoing state-court criminal prosecution under the Younger abstention doctrine.
• Arnold v. Patterson
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-02
  The Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding it barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger abstention, and the domestic relations exception.
• Perry v. State of Fla. (Lee County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-01
  The court held that a pretrial detainee cannot seek habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and relief under § 2241 requires exhaustion of state remedies and deference to ongoing state proceedings under the Younger abstention doctrine.
• Shaffer v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrections-Hillsborough
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-19
  The court held that the petitioner cannot proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as a pre-trial detainee and that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court decisions or grant writs of prohibition/certiorari in this context. A certificate of appealability is denied.
• Perry v. Roos
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-11
  The Court dismissed the pro se plaintiff's complaint because federal courts must abstain from intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.
• Norfleet v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-10
  Tino Norfleet, a pretrial detainee, filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging aspects of his ongoing state criminal case, including alleged due-process and speedy-trial violations. The district court dismissed the petition as frivolous under the Younger abstention doctri
• Shaffer v. Sec'y, State of Fla.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-15
  The court held that the applicant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was premature because he had not exhausted state court remedies and his speedy trial claim was not yet constitutionally cognizable. The court also denied a certificate of appealability.
• Lovett v. Warden, Hernando Cnty. Detention Ctr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-07
  The court held that a pre-trial detainee is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the charging instrument in a pending state criminal proceeding.
• Phillips v. Hendry Cnty. Jail
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-07
  The court held that a federal court must abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings and that a § 1983 claim requires a state actor.
• Atchley v. Warden, Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-04
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and venue to entertain a common law writ of habeas corpus and that federal courts generally abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings.
• Anderson v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-02-28
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim because the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IADA) does not apply to pretrial detainees, and any claims challenging the fact or duration of his confinement are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine.
• Hatcher v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Duval)
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-27
  The court held that a federal court should not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, and the petitioner's claims did not meet these exceptions.
• Fletcher v. Fox
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to prosecutorial immunity, the non-state actor status of public defenders, and Younger abstention.
• Parker v. Judd (Polk County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-20
  The federal court dismissed the petitioner's habeas corpus petition because he failed to demonstrate the necessary exhaustion of state remedies and did not meet the criteria for Younger abstention.
• Jarman v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-08
  The court held that a pretrial detainee's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed without prejudice because the court must abstain under Younger v. Harris and the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies.
• Ray v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-01-02
  A pro se plaintiff's complaint was dismissed because it constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.