* 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 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines o f law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### NOV 29 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ALI MEHDIPOUR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES S. MATTHEWS, JR., Private Attorney; NANCY COATS, Judge, individually and in her official capacity as Oklahoma County District Court Judge; NILES JACKSON, Judge, individually and in his official capacity as Oklahoma County District Court Judge, Defendant-Appellees. No. 01-6135 (D.C. No. 01-CV-214) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , KELLY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.- 2 -

Oklahoma state prisoner Ali Mehdipour brought the p resent pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mehdipour was the plaintif f in a prior real estate dispute, and he hired attorney James Matthews to re present him. Mehdipour later fired Matthews, retained new counsel, and prevailed in the real estate dispute before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Matt hews obtained a judgment from Oklahoma County District Court Judge Nancy Coats for attorney’s fees and costs, and, after judgment had been entered in Mehd ipour’s favor by the supreme court in the real estate dispute, Matthews successf ully petitioned the county district court to add Matthews to the caption of Me hdipour’s real estate action in order to assert his claim for attorney’s fees again st the judgment. Mehdipour responded by filing one suit before Oklahoma County District Court Judge Niles Jackson alleging that Matthews and Judge Coats had violated his rights, and a second suit before Judge Jackson alleging that Matt hews had defrauded him. Each of these suits was dismissed, and Mehdipour br ought the present § 1983 action against Matthews, Coats, and Jackson, allegi ng a conspiracy to deprive him of his property. The court below dismissed Mehdipour’s claims. It h eld that defendants Coats and Jackson were entitled to absolute judicia l immunity because they had not acted “without any colorable claim of jurisdict ion.” Snell v. Tunnell , 920 F.2d 673, 686 (10th Cir. 1990). It further held th at defendant Matthews was not1 Mehdipour argues on appeal that absolute judicial immunity does not

apply to his claims for injunctive relief rather th an damages. The only injunctive relief sought by Mehdipour in his complaint was a d eclaratory judgment that the defendants had violated his rights. However, “[t]h e Eleventh Amendment does not permit judgments against state officers declari ng that they violated federal law in the past.” Johns v. Stewart , 57 F.3d 1544, 1553 (10th Cir. 1995).

- 3 - subject to suit under § 1983 because Mehdipour had failed adequately to allege a conspiracy with state actors. On appeal, Mehdipourconclusorily asserts that the state judges acted in the clear absence of all juri sdiction and contends that “it is difficult to plead with specific[ity] a conspiracy” in this case. 1
We AFFIRM for substantially the reasons given by the distric t court. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge