or unable to protect the constitutional rights of individuals or to punish those who violated theses rights; and 3) many legislators interpreted the civil rights act to provide concurrent forums. 457 U.S. at 503, 505, 506, 102 S.Ct. 2557. Because of this legislative history regarding the purpose of § 1983, the Court held that the plaintiff did not have to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal intervention. Of course, the instant action does not involve a § 1983 claim. 18 . Some district courts have held that the coercive/remedial distinction is dispositive and that federal courts should never abstain under Younger in a remedial case even if the three requirements for Younger abstention have been met. See Gordon v. East Goshen Township, 592 F.Supp.2d 828, 842 (E.D.Pa.2009) (<HOLDING>). In Gordon, there was a pending lawsuit in
holding that courts should only abstain under younger if the state proceedings are coercive and not remedial and citing a number of district court opinions 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 district court should have abstained pursuant to younger and thus remanding to district court to dismiss without prejudice holding that federal district courts should abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings holding that appellate court should overturn a district courts denial of a motion to amend a complaint only if the district court has abused its discretion