A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l y thator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l y as s i s tt he det er m 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 C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he cour tgener al l y di s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm ay be ci t ed undert he t er m s and c o n d itio n s o f1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay31,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT RI CH AR D TA ST,

P lain tiff -A p p e llan t, v. JO H N A . D E A N , JR ., a n in d iv id u a l; J O H N A N D J A N E D O E S, foreac h and eve r y att emptof i nt i m i dat i on and r et al i at i on agai ns tPl ai nt i ff forhavi ng filed th is c o m p lain t,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 2298 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 05 - 29 5 BB /W D S)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , EBEL , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

R ich a rd T a st, p ro c e e d in g p ro se , ap p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o fh is 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n s e e k i n g i nj u n c t i v e a n d d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f . WeSee R ookerv. Fi d. T r us tC o. , 263 U . S. 413 ( 1923) ; D . C . C our tof A ppeal s v. 1 F eldm an , 4 6 0 U . S . 4 6 2 (19 8 3 ).

- 2- have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l under28 U . S. C . § 1291, forl ack ofj ur i s di ct i on underthe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. W e A F F I R M the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of Tast ’ s compl ai nt , al bei ton a di ffe r entgr ound t han the one on w hi ch the di s tr i ct cour tr el i ed. A ft erthe N ew M exi co G ami ng C ontr ol B oar d deni ed Tast ’ s appl i cati on for a perm i tthat w ou l d all ow him t o w ork i n a N ew M exico gam i ng faci l i t y , T ast file d a lib e l a n d s la n d e r a c tio n in N e w M e x ic o s ta te c o u rt . S e e T a s t v . N .M . G a m in g C o n tro l B d ., N o . D -1 1 6 -C V -2 0 0 4 2 2 0 4 (N .M . 1 1 th Ju d . D ist. C t.). W h ile the s t at e ca s e w as pendi ng, T as tfi l ed a § 1983 c om pl ai ntagai ns tt he pr es i di ng j udge, J udge D ean, cl ai m i ng thathe l acke d acc es s t o “compet entcour t s of l aw w ith in the S tat e o f N ew M ex ico.” H e re q u ested that the fed era l distri ct co u rt “enj oi n thos e notl aw ful l y hol di ng publ i c offi ce, ” i ncl udi ng J udge D ean, and s t ay th e p ro c e e d in g s in th e sta te c a se “ u n til su c h tim e a s th a t C o u rt b e c o m e s d u ly compet ent . ” The fede r al di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntforl ack of ju risd ictio n u n d e r th e R o o k e r-F e ld m a n d o c trin e b e c a u se th e su bjec t sta te pr ocee di ngs r emai ned pendi ng. 1 U nderthe Supr eme C our t ’ s s ubs equentdeci s i on i n E xxon M obi l C orp. v. S a u d i B a sic In d u strie s C o rp ., 1 2 5 S . C t. 15 1 7 (2 0 0 5 ), th e d istric t co u rt c lea rly err ed. T he C our thel d thatR ooker - Fel dm an appl i es onl y i n “ca s es br oughtbySee Y o u n g e r v . H a rr is , 4 0 1 U .S . 3 7 (1 9 7 1 ). 2

- 3- sta te- c o u rt lo se rs c o m p lain in g o finju rie s c a u se d b y sta te- c o u rt ju d g m e n ts r ender ed befor e the di s tr i ctcour tpr ocee di ngs comm ence d and i nvi t i ng di s tr i ct cour tr evi ew and r ej ecti on of thos e j udgm ent s . ” I d. at1521- 22. H er e, the N ew M exi co ca s e had notcome t o a fi nal j udgm entbefor e Tastcomm ence d hi s fede r al c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g . T h u s , th e R o o k e r - F e l d m a n d o c tr i n e d o e s n o ta p p l y. W e may , how ever , affi r m the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on “on anygr ounds for w hi ch ther e i s a r ecor d s uffi ci entt o per m i tconcl us i ons of l aw , even gr ounds not r el i ed upon by the di s tr i ctcour t . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sandoval , 29 F. 3d 537, 542 n. 6 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . I n E xxon M obi l , the C our tnot ed that “[ c]o m ity o r ab sten ti o n d o ctri n es m ay , in v ariou s circu m stan ce s, p erm ito r req u ir e the fed era l cou rtto stay o r dism iss th e fed era l acti o n in fav o r ofthe s tat e-c o u rt l i t i gat i on. ” Exxon M obi l , 125 S. C t . at1527. T he defendantpr evi ous l y ar gued bel ow thatthe di s tr i ctcour ts houl d abs t ai n underthe Y oungerabs t ent i on d o c trin e . U n d e r th is d o c trin e , “fe d e ra l co u rts s h o u ld n o t in ter fe re w ith sta te

2 cour tpr ocee di ngs by gr ant i ng equi t abl e r el i ef – s uch as i nj unct i ons of i m por t ant sta te p ro c e e d in g s o r d e c lar a to ry ju d g m e n ts re g a rd in g c o n stitu tio n a l issu e s in thos e pr ocee di ngs – w hen a s t at e forum pr ovi des an ade quat e ave nue forr el i ef. ” W eit ze l v. D iv. ofO cc u p ati o n al & P rof ’l L icen sing , 2 4 0 F . 3 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 5 (10 th C ir . 2001) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . “Y ounger abs t ent i on i s non- di s cr et i onar y ; t he di s tr i ct- 4-

c o u rtm u s t a b s ta in o n c e th e c o n d itio n s a re m e t . . . .” Id . (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T h e se c o n d iti o n s a re : ( 1) ther 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) the 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 the 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 tely a rticu late d sta te po l i ci es. Id. (qu o tat ion s o m itted). E ach ofthe condi t i ons i s m eti n thi s cas e. T he N ew M exi co ca s e w as pendi ng thr oughoutthe per i od bet w een Tas t ’ s fi l i ng of hi s compl ai ntand the fede r al di s tr i ctcour t ’ s r ul i ng. D es pi t e Tast ’ s i ns i s t ence thatthe s t at e courti s not a c o m p e ten t co u rt, th e re is n o re c o rd su p p o rt fo r a n y in fe re n c e th a t th e sta te p roc ee d ing s d id n o t pro v ide a n ad eq u ate fo rum fo r T ast’s claim s. F inally , T ast’s c laim s re q u ire in ter p re tin g th e sta te c o n stitu tio n a n d sta te s tatu tes . T h is cons t i tut es an i m por t ants t at e i nt er es t . T hus , the Y oungerabs t ent i on doctr i ne w oul d have pr ecl uded the di s tr i ctcour tfr om adj udi cati ng t hi s acti on. T he judgm ent of the d i stri ctcou rti s AFF I RM ED . T as t ’ s m ot i on ent i t l ed “R evis i tthe M oti on for W ri tof Q uo W arr anto” i s DENI ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge