Davidson

MEMORANDUM **

Robert M. Davidson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . After de novo review, Baffert v. Calif. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613 , 617 (9th Cir.2003), we affirm.

Davidson requested that the district court stay the ongoing proceedings in Grossman v. Davidson, Pima County Superior Court Case No. C-333954 (the “State Action”). Thus, there is “ ‘no doubt’ that the federal injunctive relief would interfere directly with those proceedings.” Baff ert, 332 F.3d at 617 (Younger abstention proper where party sought to enjoin state administrative proceedings).

Contrary to Davidson’s contention, Younger abstention is not limited to criminal proceedings. See Columbia Basin *924 Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir.2001) (“The Younger principle applies to civil proceedings ... in which important state interests are involved.”). Davidson’s allegation that the Arizona statutory scheme regarding the withdrawal of counsel is unconstitutional is sufficiently important to invoke Younger abstention. Furthermore, there is no support for…