* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This 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 14 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT NELSON ENTRUP, Individually, a/k/a Robert E. Nelson and d/b/a Vista, Vista Financial Services, Vista General and Enco Agency alter egos of Robert Nelson, Entrup and JULIE DIANE ENTRUP, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. STATE OF COLORADO, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO; GALE A. NORTON, Attorney General; JACK WYSOKY, Assistant Colorado Attorney General; VICKY BARBER, Investigator for the Colorado Attorney General; BOULDER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, and Boulder County District Court In Re Colorado v. Robert Nelson Entrup, et al., case no. 90-CV-1571-5, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-1197 (D.C. No. 92-B-2328) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument.

1 The district court previously granted summary judgm ent in favor of defendants on the basis of collateral estoppel. Th is court reversed that determination. Entrup v. Colorado , No. 93-1454, 30 F.3d 141, 1994 WL 396048 (10th Cir. July 29, 1994).

2Apart from the immunity problem, the first amended complaint fails to state a claim for many other reasons, most of whichwere identified by the magistrate judge. See I R. doc. 132. - 2 - Before BRORBY, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiffs appeal from the order on remand 1 of the federal district court dismissing this action with prejudice. The first amended complaint alleges a variety of constitutional and statutory claims aris ing out of a state court proceeding where Plaintiffs were fined, forfeited p roperty in connection with their loan business, and ordered to make restitution base d upon violations of several antifraud statutes. See I R. doc. 48. On appeal, Plaintiffs take issue wi th the district court’s determination that this action is barred by the Defendants’ immunity. 2See Aplts. Opening Br. at 3. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercising plenary review, we affirm. Claims brought in federal court for monetary relief against Defendants State of Colorado, the Boulder County District Court, and the individual Defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.- 3 -

See Kentucky v. Graham , 473 U.S. 159, 169-70 (1985); Edelman v. Jordan , 415 U.S. 651, 668-69 (1974). Claims for monetary relie f against the individual defendants (in their individual capacities) affiliated with the attorney general’s office are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity insofar as these claims deal with the initiation and prosecution of the civil ac tion against the Plaintiffs. See Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976); Roberts v. Kling , 104 F.3d 316, 318-19 (10th Cir. 1997). To the extent that t he individual Defendants acted pursuant to facially valid court orders in seizing and inventorying the Plaintiffs’ business assets, see I R. doc. 4 at 10-11; doc. 48 at 6, they are prote cted by absolute judicial immunity. See Valdez v. City and County of Denver , 878 F.2d 1285, 1289-90 (10th Cir. 1989). Claims for damages against judges in their individual capacities would be barred by absolute j udicial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349, 355-57 (1978). Having determined that the claims for monetary reli ef against the Defendants are barred, we proceed to claims for inj unctive relief. The injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs is no less than rev iew of a state court judgment, something which a lower federal court is not empowe red to do. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Facio v. Jones , 929 F.2d 541, 543-44 (10th Cir. 1991). Additionall y, Plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective injunctive relief against prosecut ion of themselves and others.- 4 -

See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons , 461 U.S. 95, 105-07 (1983); O’Shea v. Littleton , 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974).
AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge