Opinion ID: 3031277
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extraordinary Circumstances Exception

Text: [7] None of the “extraordinary circumstances” exceptions to Younger abstention applies here. With respect to bias, Bendel fails to offer any “actual evidence” to overcome the “presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators.” Hirsh, 67 F.3d at 713-14 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir. 2003). We have also spe4134 BENDEL v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA cifically rejected arguments like Bendel’s that the California Supreme Court has an inherent conflict of interest in considering constitutional challenges to state bar disciplinary proceedings. Hirsh, 67 F.3d at 713. Bendel’s claim that the state bar statutes are patently unconstitutional also does not, by itself, support an extraordinary circumstances exception to Younger abstention. Id. at 714; see also Baffert, 332 F.3d at 621-22. [8] Because each of the three Middlesex prongs is satisfied and the extraordinary circumstances exception does not apply, the district court was required to abstain from exercising jurisdiction. See Green, 255 F.3d at 1093.