The following excerpt is from Henderson v. California, No. 2:20-cv-1407 AC P (E.D. Cal. 2020):
barred from pursuing his constitutional claims in state court, and allowing him to proceed in federal court before the conclusion of his state court proceedings would constitute the kind of interference of which Younger disapproves. Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) ("[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts. Apparent finality of one issue is not enough.").
For these reasons, Younger abstention is required.
II. Certificate of Appealability
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.