Michael Dubinka, John Coleman, and Raul Meza appeal the district court's order dismissing their action for declaratory and injunctive relief for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The district court abstained under the doctrine established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971). We affirm.

On June 5, 1990, California voters adopted a ballot initiative popularly referred to as Proposition 115, which significantly altered discovery in California criminal cases by requiring that discovery be reciprocal. Proposition 115 contained both constitutional and statutory provisions. First, it included a state constitutional provision mandating that discovery be reciprocal in criminal cases.1 Second, it added substantive discovery provisions to the California Penal Code. See Cal. Penal Code Secs. 1054-1054.7 (West Supp.1994).

The substantive discovery provisions require pretrial disclosure by defendants and their counsel of the identities, addresses, and statements of all witnesses whom the defense intends to call at trial. They also require the pretrial production of all physical evidence that the defense intends to introduce, pretrial disclosure of all expert reports and physical and mental examinations of the defendant, and pretrial production of scientific reports and experiments. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1054.3 (West Supp.1994). The statute requires the State to disclose the identities, addresses, and statements of the witnesses it intends to call at trial, physical evidence that it has seized during its investigation, statements made by the defendant, and the same medical and scientific evidence that the defense is required to disclose. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1054.1 (West Supp.1994).2

The constitutionality of Proposition 115 has been challenged in California state courts. In Izazaga v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 3d 356, 815 P.2d 304, 285 Cal. Rptr. 231 (1991), the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state law against challenges that it violated the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Since Izazaga, the California Supreme Court has considered additional constitutional challenges to Proposition 115. E.g., People v. Superior Court (Mitchell), 5 Cal. 4th 1229, 859 P.2d 102, 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 403, modified, 6 Cal. 4th 951a (1993) (holding that Proposition 115's provisions apply to penalty phase of a capital trial, and the discovery of penalty phase evidence ordinarily should occur prior to commencement of guilt phase of trial, although court has discretion to defer disclosure until guilt phase is complete); In re Littlefield, 5 Cal. 4th 122, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 248, 851 P.2d 42 (1993) (holding that sections 1054.3 and 1054.5 authorize the court to order defense counsel to disclose address of person defense intends to call as witness at trial and to impose a contempt sanction for refusal to obey that order).3

On March 23, 1992, appellants filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The complaint alleged that Proposition 115 violated appellants' constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The complaint named as defendants the Judges of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, the California State Attorney General, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney.

At the time the federal complaint was filed, all of the appellants were defendants in pending criminal prosecutions in state court. On May 12, 1992, the district court dismissed the action on the grounds that abstention was appropriate under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971).4 Judgment was entered on May 14, 1992. Appellants timely appealed.

The district court had jurisdiction over appellants' facial challenges to Proposition 115 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 & 1343 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.

Younger abstention decisions are reviewed de novo. Gartrell Constr., Inc. v. Aubry, 940 F.2d 437, 441 (9th Cir.1991); World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v. Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir.1987).

The State first argues that, under the Rooker -Feldman doctrine, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case.

Federal district courts may exercise only original jurisdiction; they may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1314-17, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923) (district courts may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state courts). This rule arises from the interplay of two jurisdictional statutes: 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, which grants district courts original jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under" federal law, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257, which grants the Supreme Court the right to review "final judgments ... rendered by the highest court of a State." This rules applies even when the state court judgment is not made by the highest state court, Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986), and when the challenge to the state court's actions involves federal constitutional issues. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 484-86, 103 S.Ct. at 1316-17.

Although a federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review constitutional challenges to a state court's decision, the court does have jurisdiction over a general constitutional challenge that does not require review of a final state court decision in a particular case. Id. at 482-86, 103 S.Ct. at 1314-17; McNair, 805 F.2d at 891. "This distinction between a permissible general constitutional challenge and an impermissible appeal of a state court determination may be subtle, and difficult to make." McNair, 805 F.2d at 891 (citations omitted).

In analyzing whether federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear a particular constitutional challenge, we must determine whether the constitutional claims are "inexplicably intertwined" with the state court's rulings in a particular plaintiff's state case. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483-84 n. 16, 103 S. Ct. at 1315-16 n. 16 (stating that "[i]f the constitutional claims presented to a United States district court are inextricably intertwined with the state court's denial in a judicial proceeding of a particular plaintiff's application for admission to the state bar, then the district court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision"); see also McNair, 805 F.2d at 892. Courts have generally concluded that claims are inextricably intertwined when the district court must scrutinize both the challenged rule and the state court's application of that rule. See Razatos v. Colorado Supreme Court, 746 F.2d 1429, 1433 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1016, 105 S. Ct. 2019, 85 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1985) (district court should not go beyond rule as promulgated to analyze application of rule); see also Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass'n v. San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362, 365 (9th Cir.1993) (district court does not have jurisdiction over claim that state superior court improperly dismissed challenge to local rent control ordinance); McNair, 805 F.2d at 892-93 (section 1983 suit alleging unconstitutionality of state court jury verdict finding of defamation is inextricably intertwined with state court's legal determination and jury's verdict).

In Feldman, the Supreme Court reviewed a case in which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals refused to admit Feldman to the District of Columbia bar because he had not graduated from law school, a requirement for admission to the bar. Feldman filed a complaint, arguing that the failure to admit him to the bar deprived him of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to review Feldman's constitutional challenge to the state court's application of the bar rule denying Feldman admission to the bar. However, the district court did have jurisdiction to determine the general constitutionality of the district's bar rule, because such review would not require reviewing "a final state-court judgment in a particular case." Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486-88, 103 S.Ct. at 1317-18.

In the present case, appellants' complaint does not require the district court to review a state court decision. In broad language it challenges the general constitutionality of Proposition 115. For example, it alleges that the discovery statutes are not fully reciprocal and that compelled disclosure of information regarding defense witnesses violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.5 A district court could easily analyze these claims without resorting to the state trial courts' discovery orders in the appellants' pending cases. See Razatos, 746 F.2d at 1433-34 (district court may determine whether state rules violate due process without reviewing decision of state supreme court). Therefore, the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction to hear appellants' facial challenges to the constitutionality of Proposition 115.6

The fundamental issue confronting us is whether Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), required the district court to abstain from hearing appellants' challenges to Proposition 115. In Younger, the Supreme Court announced a doctrine that federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the state's bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute is " 'flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.' " Id. at 53-54, 91 S.Ct. at 755 (citations omitted). Younger premises its holding on principles of equity and comity. A basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence is that courts of equity "should not act to restrain a criminal prosecution[ ] when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury." Id. at 43-44, 91 S.Ct. at 750. As a matter of comity, federal courts should maintain respect for state functions and should not unduly interfere with the state's good faith efforts to enforce its own laws in its own courts. Id.

Our circuit has stated that Younger abstention is appropriate if "(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings, (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise federal questions." Gartrell Constr., 940 F.2d at 441 (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 2521, 73 L. Ed. 2d 116 (1982)); Polykoff v. Collins, 816 F.2d 1326, 1332 (9th Cir.1987). We agree with the district court that these three requirements for abstention are all present in this case.

The first requirement for Younger abstention--that there be ongoing state judicial proceedings--is clearly met because at the time the complaint was filed in federal court, the appellants were all subjects of pending criminal prosecutions in state court. The Supreme Court has held that Younger abstention applies to prevent federal intervention in a state judicial proceeding in which a losing litigant has not exhausted his state appellate remedies. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 607-11, 95 S. Ct. 1200, 1209-12, 43 L. Ed. 2d 482 (1975). Therefore, even if appellants' trials were completed at the time of the district court's decision, the state court proceedings were still pending for Younger abstention purposes.

The second requirement for Younger abstention--that the state proceedings implicate important state interests--is also satisfied. Appellants argue that the proceedings do not implicate important state interests because they do not seek to invalidate a statute or preclude a prosecution; rather, they merely seek to enjoin enforcement of a discovery statute that is constitutionally suspect and to suppress evidence obtained under the statute. This argument is not persuasive, however, because the application of Younger abstention has not been limited to injunctions that apply to entire proceedings. Instead, the Supreme Court has required Younger abstention in cases in which the federal plaintiff sought federal intervention, in advance of a state criminal trial, to resolve isolated and individualized trial issues like the admissibility of evidence. Thus, in Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 95 S. Ct. 1524, 44 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1975), the Supreme Court declined to intervene to enjoin a state court from admitting into evidence coerced grand jury testimony. Id. at 129-31, 95 S.Ct. at 1533-34. The Court stated that " '[i]f the federal equity power must refrain from staying State prosecutions outright to try the central question of the validity of the statute on which the prosecution is based, how much more reluctant must it be to intervene piecemeal to try collateral issues.' " Id. at 130, 95 S.Ct. at 1533 (quoting Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117, 123, 72 S. Ct. 118, 121, 96 L. Ed. 138 (1951) (declining to enjoin admission in state criminal proceeding of evidence obtained in unlawful search)); see also Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 83-85, 91 S. Ct. 674, 675-677, 27 L. Ed. 2d 701 (1971) (reversing district court order suppressing in state criminal proceeding use of evidence seized unconstitutionally).7

We also conclude that the third requirement for Younger abstention is met because appellants had an adequate opportunity to raise their constitutional challenges in the state proceedings.

Appellants allege that because the California Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 115, and because lower state courts are bound by Izazaga, no state trial or intermediate court has jurisdiction to rule in their favor on constitutional issues. Therefore, they argue that they have no adequate opportunity to present their claims in state court.

A handful of cases support appellants' argument. See Tolbert v. Memphis, 568 F. Supp. 1285, 1289-90 (W.D.Tenn.1983) (where virtually identical city ordinance that prohibits exposure of female breasts in a "public place" has been held constitutional by state supreme court, federal court is not obliged to abstain and force plaintiffs to pursue futile appeals in state court); see also McKinstry v. Genesee County Circuit, 669 F. Supp. 801, 805-06 (E.D.Mich.1987); Mastin v. Fellerhoff, 526 F. Supp. 969, 971 (S.D.Ohio 1981).

Although there is some district court case law supporting appellants' position, the Supreme Court has suggested that the contention that federal claimants must have access to a federal forum because they have no practical opportunity to present their claims in state court will prevail only when procedural laws bar presentation of the claims. In Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 99 S. Ct. 2371, 60 L. Ed. 2d 994 (1979), the federal plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge to a state law that permitted the state to take custody of children it suspected of suffering from abuse. The Supreme Court concluded that Younger abstention was appropriate because state law did not impose procedural barriers to raising the constitutional claims in the state court proceedings. Id. 442 U.S. at 430 & n. 12, 99 S. Ct. at 2380 & n. 12 (quoting Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337, 97 S. Ct. 1211, 1218, 51 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1977) (" 'Here it is abundantly clear that appellees had an opportunity to present their federal claims in the state proceedings. No more is required to invoke Younger abstention.... Appellees need be accorded only an opportunity to fairly pursue their constitutional claims in the ongoing state proceedings' ") (emphasis in original); see also Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 14-16, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 1527-1529, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987) (stating that Younger applies where state court had power to consider constitutional challenge to enforcement provision and that the burden is on the federal plaintiff to show that state procedural law barred presentation of his claims).

The First Circuit has interpreted Pennzoil and Moore as holding that when federal plaintiffs are permitted to raise their challenge in the state proceedings, the fact that the state supreme court has previously rejected an identical argument does not make Younger abstention inappropriate. Duty Free Shop, Inc. v. Administracion De Terrenos, 889 F.2d 1181 (1st Cir.1989). The First Circuit concluded that

[t]he fact that state ... courts may reject (or have rejected) arguments on the merits, however, does not mean those courts have deprived a plaintiff of the opportunity to make the argument.... [I]t is only where, for procedural or other reasons, the state courts deprive the plaintiff of such an opportunity that Younger does not apply.

Id. at 1183 (emphasis in original). Our circuit has also implicitly adopted this rule. See Lebbos v. Judges of Superior Court, 883 F.2d 810, 815 (9th Cir.1989) (stating that appellants must show they are barred from raising federal claims in state action to avoid Younger). Given the narrow interpretation granted this exception by the Supreme Court and by lower federal courts in recent cases, we conclude that appellants do have an opportunity to raise their claims in state court because they are not procedurally barred from raising such claims.

In Younger, the Supreme Court stated that federal courts may enjoin pending state court proceedings in "extraordinary circumstances," such as when the statute involved is " 'flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it.' " Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54, 91 S. Ct. at 755 (quoting Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387, 402, 61 S. Ct. 962, 967, 85 L. Ed. 1416 (1941)); see also Juidice, 430 U.S. at 338, 97 S.Ct. at 1218; Huffman, 420 U.S. at 611, 95 S.Ct. at 1211; Lebbos, 883 F.2d at 814; World Famous Drinking Emporium, 820 F.2d at 1082.8 Appellants argue that Proposition 115 is just such an enactment. We disagree.

The requirement that a statute must be unconstitutional in every "clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner" it is applied, demonstrates that this exception to Younger abstention is very narrow. The refusal to apply the exception in the Younger case, itself, illustrates the narrowness of this exception: in Younger, the federal plaintiff could not bring himself within this exception even though the statute under which he was indicted--the California Criminal Syndicalism Act--had been effectively invalidated the previous year in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 449, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 1830, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 (1969) (overruling Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 47 S. Ct. 641, 71 L. Ed. 1095 (1927)). Younger, 401 U.S. at 40-41, 91 S.Ct. at 748-749.

In Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 97 S. Ct. 1911, 52 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1977), the Supreme Court confirmed the narrowness of the exception. In Trainor, the federal plaintiffs challenged a state attachment statute that the state had used to recover allegedly fraudulent welfare payments. The district court had found the statute to be patently unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, indicating that because some state attachment statutes are constitutional, the state court litigation involving the state attachment statute in question could not fall within this exception to Younger. Id. at 447, 97 S.Ct. at 1919 (citing to Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 94 S. Ct. 1895, 40 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1974) (state attachment statute that permits order by a court only on an affidavit and after the creditor files a bond, and that provides for immediate hearing and dissolution of order for failure to prove grounds for issuance, is constitutional) and North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S. Ct. 719, 42 L. Ed. 2d 751 (1975) (statute that does not have provisions similar to those described in Mitchell found to be unconstitutional)). The Court suggested that if the constitutionality of the state statute is unclear or if the statute may be applied constitutionally in some cases, then abstention under Younger is appropriate.

Appellants raise numerous arguments regarding why Proposition 115 violates the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. But even if appellants are correct that some applications of Proposition 115 are unconstitutional, the discovery provisions are not so "flagrantly and patently" unconstitutional as to invoke federal jurisdiction. Appellants' claims require the interpretation of case law dealing with criminal procedure and due process, a complex area of law in which many decisions turn on the specific facts of the case.9 If Proposition 115 is unconstitutional, it is not patently unconstitutional in every "clause, sentence and paragraph" and in whatever manner it might be applied.10 For this reason, the Younger exceptions do not apply in this case.11

We agree with the district court that the tenets of Younger v. Harris require the district court to abstain from reviewing appellants' constitutional challenges to Proposition 115. The district court's order dismissing the action is

AFFIRMED.