context: However, Mr. Melton asserts that adoption proceedings were scheduled for May 12,13, 14,15, and 16, 2014 in D.C. Superior Court and this Court cannot stay proceedings that already have occurred. Moreover, this Court must abstain from interfering in ongoing D.C. court proceedings under the Younger abstention doctrine.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 401 U.S. 45, 45
citation_a.parenthetical: "[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions."
citation_a.sentence: See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45, 91 S.Ct. 746 (“[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.”); see also District Properties Assocs. v. District of Columbia, 743 F.2d 21, 27 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“[B]ased on principles of equity ... the doctrine of Younger ... and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial proceedings.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 743 F.2d 21, 27
citation_b.parenthetical: "[B]ased on principles of equity ... the doctrine of Younger ... and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial proceedings."
citation_b.sentence: See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45, 91 S.Ct. 746 (“[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.”); see also District Properties Assocs. v. District of Columbia, 743 F.2d 21, 27 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“[B]ased on principles of equity ... the doctrine of Younger ... and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial proceedings.”).