A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 . 1 ( G) . T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r19,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
RA YM OND G. CH AP M AN, in d iv id u a lly , an d o n b e h a lf o f a ll per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t,
v. S T AT E OF OKL AHOMA; W. A. D R E W E D M O N D SO N , A t t or ney G en era l; B R A D H E N R Y , G o v ern o r; J O SE PH M . W A T T , C hi ef J us t i ce, O k lah o m a S u p re m e C o u rt,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 5064

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV- 7 2 2 - CVE - P J C) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * R aym ond G . C hapman, Pr o Se. G r egoryT hom as M et cal fe, A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al , O kl ahoma A t t orney G eneral ’s O ffi ce, O klahom a C i t y , O klahom a, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.See 1 D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a C our tof A ppeal s v. Fel dm an, 460 U . S. 462 ( 1983) , and R ookerv. Fi del i t yT rus tC o. , 263 U . S. 413 ( 1923) . See 2 Y oungerv. H arr i s , 401 U . S. 37 ( 1971) .

- 2- B efor e TY M KOVI CH , AN DE RS ON , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge.

Pl ai nt i ff Ray m ond G . C hapman appeal s fr om t he di s m i s s al of hi s amended compl ai ntforl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on undert he R ooker
- Fel dm an doctr i ne. 1 W e conc l ude thateven though fede r al j ur i s di ct i on i s notbarr ed byt he R ooker
- Fel dm an doctr i ne, j ur i s di ct i on i s barr ed byt he Y oungerabs t ent i on doctr i ne. W e ther efor e affi r m t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al butr emand fort he

2 l i m i t ed purpos e of ha vi ng t hatdi s m i s s al corr ect ed t o be w i thoutpr ej udi ce. M r. C h a p m a n filed su it i n fe d e ra l co u rt a ttem p tin g to c h a llen g e , o n b e h a lf of hi m s el f and other s adj udi cat ed byan O kl ahoma st at e courtt o be a nonc us t odi al par ent , al l eged c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons i n the fa m i l ycourts y s t em of t he St at e of O kl ahoma. H e s oughtdamages and dec l ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tt he St at e of O kl ahoma and t he G overnor , t he A t t or neyG ener al , and the C hi ef J us t i ce of the O kl ahoma Supre m e C our t , al l i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es onl y . T he di s t r i ct cour tdi s m i s s ed the amended compl ai nt , hol di ng thatt he R ooker
- Fel dm an d o c t r i n e b a r r e d fe d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rM r . Ch a p ma n ’ s c l a i ms . On- 3-

M r . C hapman’ s “M ot i on t o C or r ectE rr or s , ” the di s tr i ctcour tr econs i der ed M r . C hapman’ s cl ai m s i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n E x x o n M o b il C orp. v. Saudi B as i c I ndus t r i es C orp. , 544 U . S. 280 ( 2005) , and aga i n r eac hed the
s ame concl us i on–t hatt he R ooker
- Fel dm an doctr i ne barr ed fe der al j ur i s di ct i on. O n a p p e a l, M r. C h a p m a n a rg u e s th a t th e R o o k e r-F e ld m a n d o c trin e is defunc ti n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n L ance v . D enn i s, 1 2 6 S . Ct . 1 1 9 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) , and thatthe di s tr i ctcourthad s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on overhi s amended compl ai nt . I n thei rr es pons e, defe ndant s conce de th a t th e R o o k e r-F e ld m a n d o c trin e h a s b e e n lim ited a n d th a t it s a p p lica tio n to th is
cas e i s ques t i onabl e, butar gue thatfede r al j ur i s di ct i on i s otherw i s e barr ed by (1 ) th e Y o u n g e r a b ste n tio n d o c trin e ; (2 ) th e d o m e stic re latio n s e x c e p tio n to fede r al j ur i s di ct i on; and ( 3) t he St at e of O kl ahoma’ s E l eventh A m endment i m m u n i t y. W e r evi ew t he di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm at t er ju ri s d ic tio n d e n o v o . G ut t m an v. K hal s a, 446 F. 3d 1027, 1031 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d b yd is m is s in g u n d e r R o o k e r- F e ld m a n . I n E xxon M obi l , t he Supr eme C our tm ade c l earthatthe R ooker
- Fel dm an doctr i ne has a narr ow s cope, and thatfede r al j ur i s di ct i on i s notbarr ed bythe R oo ker- F el dm an d octr i ne if s uit“w as fi l ed b efore t he en d o f t he st at e cou rt s’ appea l pr oces s . ” G ut t m an, 446 F. 3d at1029, 1031- 32 (d isc u ss in g E x x o n M o b il, 544 U . S. at290- 91) . I n L ance , t he Supr eme C our tr eemphas i zed the narr ow- 4-

co n tou rs of

the R o o k er-F eldm an d o ctri n e (b u t, co n tr aryto M r. C h ap m an ’s cont ent i on, di d nothol d t hatt he doctr i ne i s defunc t ) . See L a n c e , 1 2 6 S . C t. at1200- 01 . M r . C hapman’ s s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs have notr eac hed the end of t he s t at e court s ’ appea l pr oces s , and the di s tr i ctcourtther efor e err ed by d is m is s in g h is c o m p la in t u n d e r R o o k e r- F e ld m a n . D efe ndant s ar gue thatt he Y oungerabs t ent i on doctr i ne neve r thel es s obl i ges t he di s t r i ctcour tt o abs t ai n fr om hear i ng M r . C hapman’ s cl ai m s . A l though defe ndant s di d notm ake thi s ar gum entt o the di s tr i ctcour t , w e ca n cons i der Y o u n g e r a b s te n tio n fo r t h e fir s t tim e o n a p p e a l. M or r ow v. W i ns l ow , 94 F. 3d 1386, 1390- 92 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . T he Supr eme C our thas es t abl i s hed thr ee fact or s t o be r el evantt o our d e c is io n a s to w h e th e r a b s te n tio n is re q u ir e d u n d e r Y o u n g e r. Seneca
- C ayuga T r i be of O kl a. v. O kl a. ex r el . T hom ps on, 874 F. 2d 709, 711 ( 10th C i r . 1989) ( ci t i ng M i ddl es ex C ount yE t hi cs C om m . v. G ar den St at e B arA s s ’ n, 457 U . S. 423, 4 3 2 (1 9 8 2 )). T h e se fa c to rs a sk u s to d e ter m in e w h e th e r: ( 1) t her e i s an ongoi ng s t at e cr i m i nal , ci vi l , oradmi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ng, ( 2) t he s t at e courtpr ovi des an ade quat e forum t o hearthe cl ai m s r ai s ed i n t he fe der al compl ai nt , and ( 3) the s t at e pr ocee di ngs in v o lv e im p o rta n t sta te in ter e sts , m a tters w h ich tra d iti o n a llylo o k to sta te la w fo r th e ir re so lu tio n o r im p lica te s e p a ra telya rticu late d sta te po l i ci es. C r ow n Poi ntI , L L C v. I nt erm ount ai n R ur al E l ec. A s s ’ n, 319 F. 3d 1211, 1215 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). “O n c e th e se th re e c o n d iti o n s a re m e t,- 5-

Y ou ng er abst enti on i s non -di scr et i on aryand , absent ext raor dinaryci rcum st ances, a di s t r i ctcour ti s r equi r ed t o abs t ai n. ” I d. T h e th re e Y o u n g e r c o n d iti o n s a re m e t in th is c a se . F irst, M r. C h a p m a n is i n v o l v e d i n a s t a t e c i v i l p r o c e e d i n g th a ti s o n g o i n g . S e c o n d , h e h a s n o ts h o wn t hatt he s t at e courti s notan ade quat e forum t o hearhi s cons t i tut i onal chal l enges to th e s ta te fa m ily c o u rt s y s te m . C f. C r ow n Poi ntI , L L C , 319 F. 3d at1215 ( hol di ng t hats t at e courtw as i nadequa t e forum w her e s t at e courthel d thatpl ai nt i ff
w a s c o llate ra llye sto p p e d f ro m ra isin g c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e s); J o s e p h A.
ex. r el W ol fe v. I ngr am, 275 F. 3d 1253, 1274 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng that Y oungerabs t ent i on cannotbe avoi ded bypurpor t ed cl as s act i on as l ong as i ndi vi dual r el i ef c an be pr ovi ded bys t at e court ) . Fi nal l y , the Supr eme C our thas l ong hel d t hat“[t ] he w hol e s ubj ectof the domest i c r el at i ons of hus band and w i fe, par entand chi l d, bel ongs t o t he l aw s of the St at es and nott o the l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . ” A nkenbr andtv. R i char ds , 504 U . S. 689, 703 ( 1992) . We concl ude thatt he di s t r i ctcourtm us tabs t ai n underY oungerfr om hear i ng M r. C h a p m a n ’s c la im s . Iti s unn ecessaryt o d i scuss defend ants ’ other ar gu m ents . W e A FFIRM t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al and R E M A N D onl yforthe d istric t co u rt to a m e n d its O p in io n a n d O rd e r to re flec t th a t th e d ism iss a l is
w i t houtpr ej udi ce a nd t o ent era R ul e 58 j udgm entdi s m i s s i ng the s ui tw i thout pr ej udi ce.