Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01287/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01287-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United Statei Co~rt ~f Appeals 

Tenth C1rcu1t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 2 9 1991 

-----------tll'OBERT L. HOECKER 

DAVID NEIL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE CITY 

AND COUNTY OF DENVER; JUDGE ASSIGNED 

TO PRESIDE OVER CASE NO. C-75784, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ANDREW ESPINOZA; JEANNIE ESPINOZA; ) 

ARTHUR ESPINOZA, JR.; BARRY ESPINOZA;) 

JUDITH ESPINOZA; BEVERLY ESPINOZA, ) 

Intervenors-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk 

No. 90-1287 

(D.C. No. 90-C-998) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

David Neil brought this action under 42 u.s.c. S 1983 (1988) 

requesting injunctive and declaratory relief. Neil, who is a 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1287 Document: 010110105224 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 1 
defendant in a civil rights action currently pending in state 

court, seeks to enjoin the state court from requiring him to stand 

trial. 

The federal district court concluded that the action should 

be dismissed on two alternative grounds. First, the court held 

that a federal district court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear cases brought under section 1983 that in essence 

seek to review and reverse state court decisions. Second, the 

district court concluded that, even if it had subject matter 

jurisdiction, abstention would be warranted to avoid undue 

interference with the ongoing state proceeding. 

We have considered the parties' contentions on appeal, and we 

are not persuaded that the district court's judgment is erroneous. 

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. However, appellees' 

motions for sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal are denied. 

Judge McKay dissents. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1287 Document: 010110105224 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 2