Jou

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-Appellant Dr. Emerson Jou appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). He argues that the second and third conditions for Younger abstention were not satisfied by his state administrative and judicial proceedings. We have jurisdiction to consider this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo whether Younger abstention is required. Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1092-93 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (citing Fresh Int’l Corp. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 805 F.2d 1353 , 1356 (9th Cir.1986)). We review the district court’s denial of Jou’s motion to amend his complaint for abuse of discretion. Caswell v. Calderon, 363 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm the district court’s application of Younger and its denial of Jou’s motion to amend. Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them in detail.

I.

Although Younger itself concerned state criminal proceedings, its rule has been extended to apply to pending state administrative proceedings. Delta Dental Plan v. Mendoza, 139 F.3d 1289 , 1294 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Bud…