Whether the abstention doctrine supports the district court's dismissal of the case while the case was under state court review

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Questhsa Mo. 1. The Tacigmest of the abstecdt oute tS Void abrartie becaus the ales trict Cackeet ‘AU Asebichaea ever the Cea&Xe_ vohile the Care UWder Sle ee release IN the State cout, Questisd No.%: Does GVrisleei19d of a Creme cle feuetcot's rights te bo Cree, CPeam Dovb& Nacpacety, aad Le Q& Unanimous Ve cehet Séate Om Vieakle claim 6€ Actucl Trwoceace or flatm thet ore | Preucea vau,=) Qecaphed te Khe \Yyeat Limitation pe Noel Uectar Tela 28 ULG, Seochem 22 Cb) CN, Wwhes Sucheral IS6f aoeushtuhonot Mog aretucte khot Loch be O upslere tack. Avesatrsd Ae. 3: Ts the holelesgs o-asch alocrsiar o& this Coan res Me Quigqqis V. Pa rtior, BBS-CH EUG C2013) Eha Oaly Skavsedacet G@asch reaQuire Meo te 6a Mmert bey oe Nabeod Prbkeoer IN aSteblshing as dedepthord to overcame the Ie yoer Limite bod paneck naoles TH+ 28 ULC, Seebom 224¢EH C0) Qye the Paurperr e@ <0 Actrret Dona cenca, Claim dy Pprockuctag New ree ww ccheomea, Wheas EMR Wo beads path hese hos Shou thek G& 4GSusve Lavsat hae CarsGefoaoeu od Ee Burcame o& thea tno upohsal Mose vw Ree, 239 le F 8ch T17O CIth Cie. ZOEY, ne