proceedings do not detract • from that obligation.” Sprint Homms., Inc. v. Jacobs, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 584, 591, 187 L.Ed.2d 505 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the Sprint decision, the Ninth Circuit holds that Younger abstention in civil cases “is appropriate only when the state proceedings: (1) are ongoing, (2) are quasi-criminal enforcement actions or involve a state’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, (3) implicate an important state interest, and (4 225, 1228-29 (4th Cir.1989) (no abstention where agency notified plaintiff of specific charges and held informal meeting, but investigation was still unfolding), with Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden St. Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 434, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons made clear in Sprint and
holding abstention appropriate where dis ciplinary authority had filed formal charges against the plaintiff holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that younger abstention was appropriate while the case works its way through the state appellate process holding that younger abstention is jurisdictional holding that plaintiff stated iied claim where officers yelled racial slurs at attacked and filed false charges against him