Page:King v. Whitmer (20-13134) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/23

 results.” Id. at 341. The parallel proceedings are premised on similar factual allegations and many of the same federal and state claims. The state court proceedings were filed well before the present matter and at least three of those matters are far more advanced than this case. Lastly, as Congress conferred concurrent jurisdiction on state courts to adjudicate § 1983 claims, Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 139 (1988), “[t]here can be no legitimate contention that the [Michigan] state courts are incapable of safeguarding [the rights protected under this statute],” Romine, 160 F.3d at 342.

For these reasons, abstention is appropriate under the Colorado River doctrine. The Court finds it unnecessary to decide whether abstention is appropriate under other doctrines.
 * E. Standing

Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts can resolve only “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III § 2. The case-or-controversy requirement is satisfied only where a plaintiff has standing to bring suit. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016). Each plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press.