Court denied Lui's motion for reargument without prejudice to a later filing of a motion to reconsider, which the District Judge restricted to the issue of the availability of fees and costs pursuant to § 1988. In effect, the District Court retained jurisdiction over the fees and costs, as they pertained to Count One (violation of the First Amendment). 9 . We also had concerns as to whether we had jurisdiction to entertain this appeal because Count Two was dismissed by the District Court without prejudice. As noted in text, when we raised this question with counsel for Lui at oral argument, he conceded that Count Two should be dismissed with prejudice, and he forwarded a letter to us acknowledging that fact. 10 . See Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Res judicata bars suit where there was
recognizing that the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings generally requires federal courts to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings holding that the district court act ed within its bounds in staying this action for declaratory relief where parallel proceedings presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state law issues were underway in state court even when the federal proceeding began before the state one holding that declaratory relief is improper when a prosecution involving the challenged state statute is pending in state court at the time the federal suit is initiated and the same principles that govern the propriety of federal injunctions of state criminal proceedings govern the issuance of federal declaratory judgments in connection with such proceedings holding that where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court the principles of younger v harris should apply in full force holding the federal and state tests to be the same