Rohit Uppal v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee

Can appellate courts summarily deny mandamus without addressing documented "badfaith”, “flagrant constitutional violations ” and judicial bias? Younger abstention is a doctrine of comity, not a license for "badfaith,”, "flagrant constitutional violations ” and judicial bias. This is not comity — it is anarchy. The overarching question is how to exactly delineate " badfaith,”“flagrant constitutional violations” and “judicial bias” exceptions, which is of nationwide importance, directly affects the rights of litigants in state domestic relations courts across the country, and warrants this Court's guidance. This case is an ideal vehicle.

Whether the Sixth Circuit's application of Younger abstention conflicts with this Court's and and other Circuits s precedents in Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013), Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973), Caperton v. A T Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009): **Supreme Court's unanimous holding that a proceeding between two private parties, not a civil enforcement action akin to a criminal prosecution, and not a proceeding uniquely in furtherance of a state court's judicial functions. ** Ninth Circuit has recognized that "Younger abstention is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the general rule that federal courts have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given." Cook v. Harding, 879 F.3d