* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral 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 

### NOV 4 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ALI MEHDIPOUR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MICHAEL SNOWDEN; RUSSELL HALL; VICKIE ROBERTSON; CHARLES HILL; NANCY COATS; BOB MACY; LISA HAMMOND,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-6204 (D.C. No. 98-CV-375) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, BARRETT, and KELLY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral-2-

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Ali Mehdipour filed suit in federal distr ict court seeking an order to enjoin an ongoing Oklahoma state court criminal prosecution. Specifically, plaintiff requested the federal court to require th e state court to hold a hearing to determine whether plaintiff’s arrest on July 31, 19 97, was supported by probable cause. The federal district court applied the Younger abstention doctrine and dismissed the action without prejudice. See Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his cas e. We affirm. We review de novo the district court’s decision to abstain pursuant to Younger . See Taylor v. Jaquez , 126 F.3d 1294, 1296 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1187 (1998). A federal court must abs tain from exercising jurisdiction when the following three conditions ar e met: (1) there is an ongoing state criminal proceeding, (2) the state court prov ides an adequate forum to hear the claims plaintiff raised in the federal case, an d (3) the state proceedings “involve important state interests, matters which traditionally look to state law for their resolution or implicate separately articulated state policies.” Id. at 1297. On appeal, plaintiff argues only that the state authorities arrested him without probable cause. He has not addressed whether Younger abstention applies or how the district court may have erred indeciding to abstain, despite the-3-

decisive nature of the issue. “This is not adequat e appellate argument.” Brownlee v. Lear Siegler Mgmt. Servs. Corp. , 15 F.3d 976, 977 (10th Cir. 1994); see also Olson v. Coleman , 997 F.2d 726, 728 (10th Cir. 1993) (finding appea l frivolous where appellant failed “to raise a single , specific allegation of error by the district court”). Nevertheless, applying the c riteria set forth above, we hold that under Younger the ongoing state criminal proceedings dictate that the federal court abstain from exercising jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues that the state court prosecution w as brought in bad faith. An exception to the general rule that a federal cou rt may not enjoin a pending state court criminal prosecution is a prosecution commenced in bad faith. See Younger , 401 U.S. at 53-54; Phelps v. Hamilton , 59 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (10th Cir. 1995). We do not address the merits of this c laim, however, because the claim was raised for the first time on appeal, see Walker v. Mather (In re Walker) , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992) (appellate courtwill not consider issue not presented to district court), and it presents only conclusory allegations, see Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (unsupportedconclusory allegations insufficient to state claim). Plaintif f’s argument that he should have been permitted to conduct discovery is also infirm because it was not presented to the district court and it does not demonstrate how discovery would have permitted him to resist Younger abstention. Cf. Smith v. Kitchen , 156 F.3d 1025, 1029-4-

(10th Cir. 1997) (appellant failed to show how disc overy would be material to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal; discovery issue not raised in district court). “Our conclusion that Younger abstention applies ends the matter.” Taylor , 126 F.3d at 1298. Plaintiff’s motion to expedite the appeal is denied. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

James E. Barrett Senior Circuit Judge