After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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 LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 31, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD TAST,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN A. DEAN, JR., an individual;

JOHN AND JANE DOES, for each

and every attempt of intimidation and

retaliation against Plaintiff for having

filed this complaint,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-2298

(D.C. No. CIV-05-295 BB/WDS)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before LUCERO, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Richard Tast, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. We
 See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. 1

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

-2-

have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, for lack of jurisdiction

under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal

of Tast’s complaint, albeit on a different ground than the one on which the district

court relied.

After the New Mexico Gaming Control Board denied Tast’s application for

a permit that would allow him to work in a New Mexico gaming facility, Tast

filed a libel and slander action in New Mexico state court. See Tast v. N.M.

Gaming Control Bd., No. D-116-CV-20042204 (N.M. 11th Jud. Dist. Ct.). While

the state case was pending, Tast filed a § 1983 complaint against the presiding

judge, Judge Dean, claiming that he lacked access to “competent courts of law

within the State of New Mexico.” He requested that the federal district court

“enjoin those not lawfully holding public office,” including Judge Dean, and stay

the proceedings in the state case “until such time as that Court becomes duly

competent.” The federal district court dismissed the complaint for lack of

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the subject state

proceedings remained pending.1

Under the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 125 S. Ct. 1517 (2005), the district court clearly

erred. The Court held that Rooker-Feldman applies only in “cases brought by
 See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 2

-3-

state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments

rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district

court review and rejection of those judgments.” Id. at 1521-22. Here, the New

Mexico case had not come to a final judgment before Tast commenced his federal

court proceeding. Thus, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply.

We may, however, affirm the district court’s decision “on any grounds for

which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even grounds not

relied upon by the district court.” United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542

n.6 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). In Exxon Mobil, the Court noted that

“[c]omity or abstention doctrines may, in various circumstances, permit or require

the federal court to stay or dismiss the federal action in favor of the state-court

litigation.” Exxon Mobil, 125 S. Ct. at 1527. The defendant previously argued

below that the district court should abstain under the Younger abstention

doctrine. Under this doctrine, “federal courts should not interfere with state 2

court proceedings by granting equitable relief – such as injunctions of important

state proceedings or declaratory judgments regarding constitutional issues in

those proceedings – when a state forum provides an adequate avenue for relief.” 

Weitzel v. Div. of Occupational & Prof’l Licensing, 240 F.3d 871, 875 (10th Cir.

2001) (quotation omitted). “Younger abstention is non-discretionary; the district
-4-

court must abstain once the conditions are met . . . .” Id. (quotation omitted). 

These conditions are: 

(1) there is an ongoing state criminal, civil, or administrative

proceeding, (2) the state court provides an adequate forum to hear the

claims raised in the federal complaint, and (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. (quotations omitted).

Each of the conditions is met in this case. The New Mexico case was

pending throughout the period between Tast’s filing of his complaint and the

federal district court’s ruling. Despite Tast’s insistence that the state court is not

a competent court, there is no record support for any inference that the state

proceedings did not provide an adequate forum for Tast’s claims. Finally, Tast’s

claims require interpreting the state constitution and state statutes. This

constitutes an important state interest. Thus, the Younger abstention doctrine

would have precluded the district court from adjudicating this action.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Tast’s motion entitled

“Revisit the Motion for Writ of Quo Warranto” is DENIED. 

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge