42 USC § 1983; Younger abstention; Younger v Harris; State contempt order; Domestic relations; Preliminary injunction; Mootness; Capable of repetition yet evading review exception; New Orleans Pub Serv, Inc v Council of City of New Orleans (NOPSI) categories; Middlesex factors; Middlesex Cnty Ethics Comm v Garden State Bar Ass’n; First Amendment; Monell claim; Monell v Department of Soc Servs of City of NY; Final order; FedRCivP 54(b); Appellate jurisdiction

The court held that Younger abstention supported denial of plaintiff-appellant’s request for injunctive relief against a state contempt order and that it lacked jurisdiction to review dismissal of her Monell claim. Plaintiff sued her ex-spouse and municipal defendants after custody-related disputes, then sought a TRO and preliminary injunction staying an Ohio domestic-relations contempt order. On appeal, the court first held that the injunction issue was not moot because the fine and redaction requirements were completed before appellate review, and the dispute was “capable of repetition yet evading review.” The court next held that Younger applied because state-court contempt proceedings are “prototypical examples” of proceedings involving orders “uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.” It also found the Middlesex factors satisfied because the domestic-relations case remained open, Ohio had an important interest in enforcing contempt orders and in child-custody proceedings, and Ohio courts were presumed able to address plaintiff’s constitutional arguments. The court rejected plaintiff’s claimed exception based on the First Amendment, reasoning that the flagrantly-unconstitutional exception is “a high bar” and narrowly applied. Finally, the court dismissed the Monell appeal because the district court’s dismissal of the City was not final, the remaining claims were still in discovery, and “‘the denial of a municipal-liability claim is not immediately appealable[.]’” Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.