The following excerpt is from Davis v. Bolanos, No. 2:19-cv-0408 JAM CKD P (E.D. Cal. 2020):
Finally, there is no indication that petitioner has been barred from pursuing his constitutional claims in state court, as he alleges that they are in fact exhausted, and allowing him to proceed in federal court before the conclusion of his state court proceedings would constitute the kind of interference of which Younger disapproves. Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) ("[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts. Apparent finality of one issue is not enough.").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.