PER CURIAM: Siegfried Christman, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. On appeal, Christman argues the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his case pursuant to the Younger doctrine. After review of the record and the appellant’s brief, we find no reversible error. “We review a district court’s decision to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction for an abuse of discretion.” Wexler v. Lepore, 385 F.3d 1336, 1338 (11th Cir.2004). “An error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Id.
Although “federal courts have a ‘virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given them,’... in exceptional cases [they] may and should withhold equitable relief to avoid interference with state proceedings. While non-abstention remains the rule, the Younger exception is an important one.” 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th Cir.2003) (internal citations omitted).
Younger abstention is required when (1) the proceedings constitute an ongoing state judicial proceeding, (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges. Id. All three prongs of the Younger doctrine are met in this case. In his complaint, Christman claims the Florida Judicial Administrative Commission’s restrictions on the rates paid to witnesses in indigent state criminal proceedings are delaying his trial on DUI charges. This admission indicates the state proceedings are ongoing.
The ability to prosecute DUI charges is an important state interest, and Christman will have an opportunity to raise his constitutional issues in the state court proceedings. The court did not abuse its discretion when it abstained under the Younger doctrine. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. AFFIRMED. . Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971)