need to resolve a significant federal constitutional question” — both of which are essential Pullman prerequisites. Batterman v. Leahy, 544 F.3d 370, 373 (1st Cir.2008) (emphasis added). “Rather,” as the court later explained, it “assumed that, like many similarly situated plaintiffs, At-water had chosen to proceed first in [state court] because he thought he had a greater likelihood of success there.” And the reason behind the court’s “order of closure for statistical purposes” — which is what the court called it — practically leaps off the printed page of that document: “to avoid the necessity of counsel to appear at periodic status conferences, or file status reports .... ” Certainly this is not the stuff of a Pullman abstention. See generally Duty Free Shop, Inc., 889 F.2d at 1183 (<HOLDING>). If that were not enough to sink Atwa-ter’s
holding that england and its reservations are not relevant  where the purpose of the abstention is not clarification of state law 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 to avoid younger abstention plaintiffs must demonstrate that state law bars the effective consideration of their federal claims holding that the adequacy of the state forum is relevant only when it would disfavor abstention