Whether the Ninth Circuit's sua sponte application of Younger abstention violates the party presentation principle and improperly evaluates federal constitutional claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Cyrus Sanai presents the following questions: 1. Does the endorsement by the Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals (among others) to raising Younger abstention sua sponte at the District Court or Court of Appeals violate the party presentation principle and is thus improper? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err when it found that Younger abstention applied without addressing the additional requirement of determining whether the California attorney discipline proceedings fall into one of the NOPSI categories, given that after this 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.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)), and so are protected by. Younger abstention, the California Supreme Court held that such proceedings are not civil enforcement proceedings nor criminal proceedings, thus avoiding the California Constitution’s requirement that the California Supreme Court hear oral argument on all civil and criminal cases before it? See In re Rose, 22 Cal.4th 430, 440 (2000). ; ii . 8. Did the Court of Appeals 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? ‘ Sanai also joins in the accompanying petition for a writ of certiorari from the same decision challenged : by Peyman Roshan presenting the following questions: 4. 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; these six views are that the federal courts: a. 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. 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 in Hawaii Housing ‘ Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 238 (1984). c. Look at the state proceedings at the time of the district court hearing and separately upon appellate review, as the majority held in Duke . v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. : 2028). ili d. Look at matters as the case progresses, in the same way constitutional standing and mootness are evaluated, which is the position of the Appellants, the Eighth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, and arguably this Court in Middlesex, supra. e. Look at the time the complaint is filed and matters before, as advocated by Judge Bumatay in his dissent in Duke, infra, and held by the Fourth Circuit. 2 f. Look at the situation upon remand from the ‘i. Court of Appeal, as the Ninth Circuit panel : decided in the unpublished decision Big Sky Scientific LLC, v. Bennetts, Case No. 19-35138 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2019). . 5. Given that Younger abstention’s application to civil cases was premised on the availability of ; Supreme Court review of allegedly unconstitutional statutes which has since been eliminated and a view that 42 U.S.C. §1983 does not guarantee a federal forum for constitutional claims against state action that has now been rejected, should Younger abstention’s application to civil cases be eliminated on grounds that it violates equal protection and access to the federal Courts? iv 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 in this petition is CYRUS SANAI, an individual. It : addresses the following appeals. Sanai v. Lawrence, Ninth Circuit Docket No. 22: 56215, Ce