Whether the federal court should abstain in an attorney disciplinary action

QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented is whether the federal court should abstain in an attorney disciplinary action when the Nebraska state court has placed bad faith obstacles on litigating Petitioner's federal rights in state court in violation of the bad faith exception to Younger v. Harris and placed bad faith obstacles on litigating Petitioner's federal rights in state court based upon Petitioner’s race? The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Timothy L. Ashford v. Office for. . Counsel for Discipline 8:19 CV 243 19-2618 has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court by denying the bad faith exception to Younger v. Harris because the Nebraska State court created . unconstitutional obstacles to a fair hearing in dismissing the Ashford v. Office for Counsel for Discipline case in CI 19 3445 and Petitioner did not have the opportunity to raise and to have timely decided by the Nebraska State Court the state and federal issues. Petitioner seeks the litigation of his lawsuit in federal court based upon the bad faith exception to Younger based upon Petitioner’s race in : violation of his constitutional rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and his due : process rights. The Eighth Circuit decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court because the respondent Office for Counsel for Discipline investigated an anonymous complaint filed by the Douglas : County Court judge in violation of the constitution in bad faith and this is only one ; of a series of repeated prosecutions to which African American Petitioner will be : subjected to based upon his race in violation of the bad faith exception in Younger v. : Harris. The Office for Counsel for Discipline engaged in bad faith, harassment and the extraordinary circumstances against Petitioner make abstention inappropriate because the respondent Office for Counsel for Discipline violated their own rule of requiring a letter of complaint before launching an attorney disciplinary . investigation against the African American Petitioner in retaliation for his successful racial discrimination against the judges in Douglas County, Omaha, Nebraska. The Eighth Circuit court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, of whether judicial immunity applies to a white female Douglas County Court judge who signs . a seventh order for African American Attorney Petitioner to reimburse the ; guardians $8,265 in a probate case PR 14 1483 after she signed six previous orders awarding attorney fees in the amount of $8,641.57 in the same case and that white female judge mailed only the seventh order which is one out of seven orders ($8,265) as an anonymous bar complaint, without writing a required detailed letter of complaint or sending the other six previous orders, to the respondent Office for Counsel for Discipline in an attempt to disbar Petitioner from the practice of law in oo retaliation for Petitioner's racial discrimination lawsuit against the Douglas County Court judges. (CI 19 9165) The Eighth Circuit court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, whether Respondent Office for Counsel for Discipline can violate the constitution and their own regulations of requiring a written letter detailing the alleged violation and "act as a prosecutor and serve as a judge in a preliminary inquiry or a hearing," against African American Attorney Petitioner. . The Eighth Circuit court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, whether ; . a separate false disciplinary inquiry complaint initiated by a non-attorney black female wife of a client who acted as an attorney for her husband and children and . the respondent Office for Counsel for Discipline allowed the non-att