Opinion ID: 3012430
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complaint against Rosini

Text: In reviewing the District Court's dismissal of the complaint against Rosini, we must determine whether the following three requirements for Younger abstention were established: (1) there must be an ongoing state judicial proceeding to which the federal plaintiff is a party and with which the federal proceeding will interfere, (2) the state proceedings must implicate important state interests, and (3) the state proceedings must afford an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims. FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 843 (3d Cir. 1996). In addition, we have stated that [e]ven if these three elements are satisfied, abstention is not appropriate where the federal claimant makes a showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance. O'Neill v. City of Philadelphia, 32 F.3d 785, 789 n.11 (3d Cir. 1994). Bresko has argued that all three exceptions to Younger abstention are applicable here. It appears that the District Court's holding that Younger abstention required dismissal of Bresko's complaint against Rosini was not unreasonable in light of the then- ongoing state criminal proceedings against Bresko, proceedings in which Bresko could have raised his constitutional claims. Now that those criminal proceedings have terminated, abstention is no longer appropriate. We therefore will remand Bresko's complaint against Rossini to the District Court.