Opinion ID: 4517871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Against Bellco

Text: In contrast with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Younger abstention doctrine applies when state proceedings have not concluded; it “dictates that federal courts not interfere with state court proceedings by granting equitable relief—such as injunctions of important state proceedings or declaratory judgments regarding constitutional issues in those proceedings—when such relief could adequately be sought before the state court.” Amanatullah v. Colo. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 187 F.3d 1160, 1163 (10th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Younger abstention is non-discretionary and must be applied when three conditions exist: 7 (1) there is an ongoing state criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, (2) the state court provides an adequate forum to hear the claims raised in the federal complaint, and (3) the state proceedings involve important state interests, matters which traditionally look to state law for their resolution or implicate separately articulated state policies. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Once again, we will not consider McDonald’s argument because he has failed to adequately brief the issue; instead of addressing Younger, he excoriates the Eagle County District Court, Bellco, the magistrate judge, and the district court. McDonald’s failure to adequately brief the issue means that we will not consider the issue on appeal. See Holmes, 762 F.3d at 1199; Murrell, 43 F.3d at 1390 n.2. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of McDonald’s claims against Bellco under Younger.