It is apparent that the defendants' motion for permission to file their counterclaim was made as a direct result of the decision of the federal District Court to stay the action brought therein by the defendant Edmund W. Price pending the final resolution of the defendants' claims in our state courts. Price v. Rust, 527 F. Sup. 569, 577 (D. Conn. 1981). The District Court stayed those proceedings on the basis of its application of the doctrine of "equitable restraint," analogizing Edmund Price's suit in the federal court to those cases in which a party seeks to enjoin state court proceedings, and pointing out that he had an "opportunity" to raise his constitutional claims in our state courts. Price v. Rust, supra, 573, 576-77.

See Martin, 532 F.2d at 195. See also Sendlewski v. Town of Southampton, 734 F. Supp. 586, 590 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) (dismissal on Younger abstention grounds appropriate where section 1983 action seeking damages based upon alleged unconstitutionality of zoning regulations brought against the town during pendency of zoning enforcement proceedings against the plaintiff); Abrams, 641 F. Supp. at 555 (dismissal on Younger abstention grounds appropriate where section 1983 action seeking damages brought against persons involved in the investigation and prosecution of the plaintiff); but see Kramer v. Metro-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Dep't, 822 F. Supp. 1572, 1575 (S.D.Fl. 1993) (issuance of a stay order as to damages claims on Younger abstention grounds appropriate where section 1983 action brought against persons involved in the criminal prosecution of the plaintiff); Price v. Rust, 527 F. Supp. 569, 573 (Conn. 1981) (same result where section 1983 action brought against town officials during pendency of zoning enforcement proceedings against the plaintiff). In the instant case, the plaintiff is challenging the validity of the pending state criminal prosecution and seeks damages on that basis. He alleges that the defendants destroyed material evidence, withheld evidence from the defense and deliberately delayed the prosecution of the case.

Id. at 193. In Price v. Rust, 527 F. Supp. 569, 577 (D.Conn. 1981), this court held that the policy behind equitable restraint applies "equally in a suit for damages, where the federal court would have to resolve issues which have been or continue to be capable of resolution in a pending state proceeding." This court in Price therefore stayed plaintiff's action for damages "pending final resolution of plaintiff's claims in the state proceedings.