FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

FEB 22 2001

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________

ALI MEHDIPOUR,

	Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHARLES CHAPEL, Judge; RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge; GARY L. LUMPKIN, Judge; CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge; STEVE LILE, Judge, individually and in their official capacities as Judges of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals,

	Defendants-Appellees.	

No. 00-6290
(W.D. Okla.)
(D.Ct. No. 00-CV-695-C)	
	____________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

	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.

	Appellant Ali Mehdipour, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s decision dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  We exercise our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

	In his § 1983 complaint, Mr. Mehdipour sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against several judges on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.  Mr. Mehdipour claimed these judges violated his constitutional rights by denying his motions in his ongoing state criminal case to terminate his attorney’s services, strike his attorney’s brief, and proceed pro se on direct appeal.  In a thorough and well-reasoned decision, the federal district court dismissed Mr. Mehdipour’s complaint, determining it lacked jurisdiction to review Mr. Mehdipour’s request for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the named state judges.  Specifically, the district court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to review the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ final decision on Mr. Mehdipour’s motions.  Even if Mr. Mehdipour did not seek review of a final state court decision, the district court concluded it must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Mr. Mehdipour’s declaratory and injunctive claims in an ongoing state proceeding, pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

	On appeal, Mr. Mehdipour argues the district courted erred in not:  1) exercising jurisdiction over his § 1983 complaint; 2) considering his supplemental complaint alleging bad faith and harassment; and 3) granting a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.  (Apt. Br. at 1, 7, 12.)  We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a § 1983 complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  See Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1998).  Similarly, we review de novo the district court’s abstention from exercising jurisdiction under Younger.  See J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1291 (10th Cir. 1999).  Under Younger, “a federal court should not enjoin a pending state criminal proceeding unless an injunction is necessary to prevent great and immediate irreparable injury.”  Id.

	After a careful review of the entire record, we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing Mr. Mehdipour’s § 1983 complaint for lack of jurisdiction, in failing to consider his supplemental complaint for the same reason, or alternatively, in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction.  Moreover, we conclude Mr. Mehdipour has not shown great and immediate irreparable injury, as necessary for an injunction, will result from the district court’s abstention from exercising jurisdiction in this case.  Thus, for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court in its July 24, 2000 Order of Dismissal, we DISMISS Mr. Mehdipour’s appeal.

						Entered by the Court:

						WADE BRORBY
						United States Circuit Judge