Opinion
No. 09-1264-cv.
June 30, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mauskopf, J.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mauskopf, J.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Emma Gunter, Rockville Centre, N.Y., pro se.
Karen Hutson, Deputy County Attorney, Donna Napolitano, Dennis J. Saffran, and Sondra Toscano, Nassau County Office of the County-Attorney, Mineola, N.Y., Jennifer Johnson and Ann P. Zybert, Office of the Attorney General of New York, New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Appellees.
PRESENT: Hon. RALPH K. WINTER, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI and Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
There are two issues currently before us: (1) Appellant's motion in this Court for a stay prohibiting Appellees from removing her grandchildren from New York, and a mandatory injunction compelling Appellees to return her grandchildren to her custody; and (2) the merits of Appellant's appeal from the District Court's order denying similar injunctive relief. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts of the case, its procedural history, and the scope of the issues on appeal.
As to the first issue — Appellant's motion in this Court — upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED because Appellant has not demonstrated "a substantial possibility, although less than a likelihood, of success" on appeal. LaRouche v. Kezer, 20 F.3d 68, 72 (2d Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Hirschfeld v. Bd. of Elections, 984 F.2d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).
As to the second issue — Appellant's appeal of the District Court's denial of injunctive relief — we find that the District Court's reasoning was sound. Given that Appellant's case is currently pending before state tribunals, the abstention doctrine made it unlikely that she would prevail on the merits, see Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44, 91 S.Ct. 746. Hence she is not entitled to a preliminary injunction, see D.D. ex rel. V.D. v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 465 F.3d 503, 510 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED.