* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicataand collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 10 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
DAN ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. STEVE P. CHILDS; WILLIAM F. LYLE, Jr., Judge; RENO COUNTY, KANSAS; STEVEN BECKER, Judge; PATRICIA MACKE-DICK, Judge; RICHARD ROME, Judge; D. STEWART OSWALT, deceased; ANDREW L. OSWALD; DAVID E. ROBERTS; DAVID KURT; ELLEN G. NEUFELD; RENO COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-3108 (D.C. No. 96-CV-1355) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Dan Roberts, appearing pro se , appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

According to his First Amended Complaint, filed Jan uary 22, 1997, Mr. Roberts is currently charged with "cultivation of m arijuana," a state offense, and is awaiting prosecution in Reno County District Cou rt. Mr. Roberts apparently is not in custody and has been appointed a public defe nder to represent him on the charge. He alleged in his amended complaint he is being denied effective assistance of counsel as his assigned public defend er "can hardly be expected to provide effective assistance of counsel," when he i s "burdened with fifty (50) cases to handle." He further alleged he is being d enied his right to represent himself pro se through denial of access to the county law library . Finally, Mr. Roberts claims denial of access to the county law l ibrary has deprived him of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth A mendment. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages in addition to eq uitable relief.-3-

On defendants' motions, the district court dismisse d Mr. Roberts' complaint against all defendants in well-written orders filedJanuary 28, 1997 and March 25, 1997. The district court held insofar as Mr. Roberts' complaint seeks equitable relief concerning his right to effective assistance of counsel, the right to represent himself, or his right of access to the court in the state criminal matter, it must abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971), doctrine. Youngerand its progeny hold that absent extraordinary circumstances creating a threat of great and immedi ate irreparable injury, a federal court is prohibited from interfering with o ngoing state criminal proceedings. Id. at 45; Phelps v. Hamilton , 59 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (10th Cir. 1995); Parkhurst v. Wyoming , 641 F.2d 775, 777 (10th Cir. 1981).

Insofar as Mr. Roberts seeks monetary damages stemm ing from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel or denial of the right to represent himself, the court held such claims unactionable under § 1983 un less and until Mr. Roberts is convicted on the pending criminal charge and that c onviction is later invalidated on those grounds. The court further held denial of access to the county law library to a person not in state custody and repres ented by counsel does not amount to a denial of access to the courts as guara nteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, the court held Mr. Roberts fai led to allege an equal-4-

protection claim under circumstances where he was a llowed access to the county law library if accompanied by his appointed counsel , and where access restrictions are rationally related to legitimate p urposes such as protecting library resources from theft and collecting user fees to ma intain the library. For these reasons, the district court dismissed Mr. Roberts' damages claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the recor d on appeal. Finding no
error, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Mr. Roberts' complaint for substantially the same reasons set forth in the dis trict court's order filed January 28, 1997.

Entered for the Court

WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge