OPINION OF THE COURT
Miguel Duran, a prisoner awaiting trial in Atlantic City Municipal Court, appeals pro se from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his complaint. Since the District Court’s ruling was proper and this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm.
I.
Duran filed a pro se complaint against the Honorable Bruce Weeks, who is presiding over Duran’s criminal case in Atlantic City Municipal Court, and the prosecutor on that case, whom Duran identifies only as Jane Doe.1 He also named the “Municipal Court of Atlantic City” and the “Prosecutor Office of Atlantic City” as defendants. Duran alleged that Judge Weeks and the prosecutor have unnecessarily delayed his trial over two years, in part because the prosecutor has been on vacation. Duran also alleged that the prosecutor is withholding discovery material that he could use to impeach the officers who will presumably testify against him. The complaint appears to assert claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Duran’s due process rights and his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and seeks an order either directing his trial to begin or for dismissal of the charges against him.
The District Court dismissed Duran’s complaint, apparently pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), on several grounds. First, the District Court noted that it “ha[d] no jurisdiction to direct the prosecution of [Duran’s] criminal trial” and that, even if it construed the complaint as a petition for a writ of mandamus, it lacked jurisdiction. Duran v. Weeks, No. 10-293, slip op. at 3, 2010 WL 1544391 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2010). Alternatively, the District Court dismissed the claims against the Municipal Court and the Prosecutor’s Office because those entities do not constitute “persons” for purposes of section 1983, as well as the claims against Judge Weeks and the prosecutor, holding that those defendants were entitled to immunity. The District Court also concluded that abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), was appropriate. Duran timely appealed.2
*758II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.3 Our review of the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of Duran’s complaint is plenary. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir.2000). “We [also] exercise plenary review over the legal determinations of whether the requirements for Younger abstention have been met and, if so, we review the district court’s decision to abstain for abuse of discretion.” FOCUS v. Allegheny Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 843 (3d Cir.1996). We may take summary action when an appeal presents no substantial question, see 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. IOP 10.6., and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Berardi v. Swanson Mem’l Lodge No. 48, 920 F.2d 198, 201-02 (3d Cir.1990).
We agree with the District Court that abstention under Younger is appropriate. In Younger, the Supreme Court recognized that the “longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings” generally requires federal courts to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings. 401 U.S. at 43-44, 91 S.Ct. 746; see also Coruzzi v. New Jersey, 705 F.2d 688, 690 (3d Cir.1983) (“Traditional principles of equity as well as federal-state comity demand that, except in carefully circumscribed situations, the federal courts should not disrupt an ongoing state judicial process, either by preempting the adjudication of claims that could be brought to the state forum, by directing the state court to stay its proceedings, or by directly interfering in other ways with the natural course of state adjudication.” (quotations omitted)). “Abstention under Younger is appropriate only if (1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims.” Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir.1989).
The criminal proceedings against Duran are ongoing and implicate the State of New Jersey’s important interest in bringing to justice those who violate its criminal laws. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 51-52, 91 S.Ct. 746. Furthermore, Duran is free to move in state court for dismissal of the charges against him on Sixth Amendment grounds. Likewise, if Duran believes that the prosecutor is withholding evidence, he can address that matter before the state Court. Since Duran’s section 1983 action *759seeking to enjoin his criminal prosecution presents the classic case for Younger abstention, the District Court’s dismissal of Duran’s complaint on that basis was clearly appropriate.4 Furthermore, to the extent that Duran is seeking dismissal of the charges against him as a result of constitutional violations, he is essentially asking for relief only available through habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). Accordingly, this appeal presents no substantial question, and we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.5