1 Williams v. Virgin Islands Board of Medical Examiners, No. 08-4795, slip op. (3d Cir. Jan. 12. 2010) [hereinafter Williams II].

2 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

3 Williams II, slip op. at 2.

4 Id.

5 Williams v. Virgin Islands Board of Medical Examiners, 2008 WL 5142181, *1 (D.V.I. 2008) [hereinafter Williams].

6 Id.

7 Id. The cause of death was unavailable.

8 Id.

9 Id. “In its decision, the Board found that Williams had acted negligently by, among other things, administering inappropriate medication to Ventura and afterward destroying all traces of that medication.”

10 Id.

11 Williams at *10.

12 Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (holding that “Younger v. Harris and its progeny espouse a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings”).

13 Younger, 401 U.S. at 43 (emphasis added).

14 Zahl v. Harper, 282 F.3d 204, 212 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Middlesex County, 457 U.S. at 432); see also Brooks v. New Hampshire Supreme Court, 80 F.3d 633, 637-38 (1st Cir. 1996).

15 Middlesex County, 457 U.S. at 432.

16 Brooks, 80 F.3d at 639.

17 Id. (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 54).

18 Williams, 2008 WL 5142181 at *4 (citations omitted); see also Zahl, 282 F.3d at 212 (holding that the “regulation of licensing and behavior of … physicians” is a “matter of paramount state importance”).

19 Id.; see 5 V.I.C. § 1421 (“Any party to any proceeding by any … board … may have the decision or determination thereof reviewed for errors therein as prescribed in this chapter and rules of court.”).

20 Williams, 2008 WL 5142181 at *3.

21 Id. at *3 n. 5 (finding that “it may well be that Williams no longer has any remedy in the Virgin Island courts” due to his failure to file a petition for a writ of review within thirty days of the challenged decision”).

22 Id. (citing O’Neill v. City of Philadelphia, 32 F.3d 785, 790-91 (3d Cir. 1994)) (finding Younger abstention proper “where the adjudicatory process has become final as a result of the federal claimant's failure to pursue state-court judicial review of an unfavorable state administrative determination”).

23 Id.

24 Id.; see also National Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Lower Providence Twp., 608 F.Supp.2d 637, 649 n. 10 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (finding that because “Plaintiffs chose to first challenge the Ordinance in front of the ZHB instead of coming directly to federal court, they were then required to exhaust their state court appellate remedies before seeking federal intervention”).

25 Williams, 2008 WL 5142181 at *5.

26 Id. at *9-10.

27 Williams II, slip op. at 4. Moreover, the Court of Appeals expressed no judgment as to the merits of such a challenge.

28 Id.

29 Id. at 6.

30 Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577 (1973).

31 See Hammond v. Baldwin, 866 F.2d 172, 177 (6th Cir. 1989) (“In summary, the cases in which a bias has been found to exist, in violation of due process, involve one of two characteristics: either the decisionmakers derived a direct, pecuniary interest from decisions adverse the claimants; or the decisionmaker was engaged in both adjudicative and executive functions in violation of the principle of separation of powers.”) (citations omitted).

32 Gibson, 411 U.S. at 579.

33 Williams II, slip op. at 6-7.

34 Williams II, slip op. at 4 (“In his appeal, Williams does not challenge the district court's holding that the Younger test was met.).

35 See, e.g., Middlesex County, 457 U.S. at 429-30; Getson v. New Jersey, Nos. 08-3261 and 08-4039, slip op. at 4-5 (3d Cir. Nov. 23, 2009).