At what point or points in time should federal courts analyze the factors for application of Younger abstention?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; ; '. Petitioner Peyman Roshan presents in this petition the following questions: ; 1. At what point or points in time should federal courts analyze the factors for application of Younger : abstention? There are at least six views expressed in , the case law, five of which are present in Ninth , ; Circuit case law: . ; a. Federal courts only look at the time the ‘ . : . complaint is filed, a view set out in the Ninth : : Circuit’s en banc authority and many other : cases. b. Federal courts look at the time the complaint is filed and perform a second check, as accepted in some Ninth Circuit case law, the panel in this appeal, and this Court. Polykoff ‘ v. Collins, 816 F.2d 1326, 1832 (9th Cir. 187); quoting Hawait Housing Authority v. Midkiff, ; 467 U.S. 229, 238 (1984). c. Federal courts look at the state proceedings at the time of the district court hearing and separately upon federal appellate review, as < the majority held in Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th — 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 2023). : oO . 4, Federal courts look at matters as the case ; ; progresses, in the same way constitutional standing and mootness are evaluated, which isthe position of the Appellants, the Eighth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, and arguably this Court in Middlesex, supra; e. Federal courts look at the time the complaint is filed and matters before, as advocated by ~ ili : | | Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that California State Bar attorney discipline proceedings meet the ; Middlesex factors in Hirsh v. Justices of Supreme Ct. . of Cal., 67 F.8d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) ; (citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden | State Bar Assn, 457 U-S. 423, 432 (1982)), and so are protected by Younger abstention, the California Supreme Court held in'Jn re Rose, 22 Cal.4th 480, 440 (2000) that such proceedings are not civil enforcement proceedings nor criminal proceedings, thus avoiding the California Constitution’s requirement that the Court hear oral argument on all civil and criminal cases before it? See . ! 3. Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the Younger abstention requirement of a fair opportunity to raise federal claims is ignored if the federal court does not think the federal constitutional argument is meritorious on a pre-emptive basis? PARTIES TO THE CASE This petition is in respect of four federal actions with two different plaintiffs and two different sets of Defendants. The four actions were consolidated for hearing and decision, though they were litigated and : briefed separately. , The plaintiff appellant and petitioner is Peyman : Roshan, an individual. The Defendants in this action are California State. Bar Chief Trial Counsel Melanie Lawrence and the , State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel, who are Ex : Parte Young defendants on behalf of the California :