04-6091 -- Beustring v. Oklahoma Bar Association -- 09/29/2005

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

GLENN R. BEUSTRING, Plaintiff-Appellant,	No. 04-6091
v.	W.D. Oklahoma
THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, the agent and an official arm of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, through its General Counsel, Dan Murdock, Defendant - Appellee.	(D.C. No. CIV-03-1538-M)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^(*)

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Attorney Glenn R. Beustring brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Oklahoma Bar Association and certain individuals, challenging disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the Bar. Counsel for the parties agreed at oral argument that the disciplinary proceedings are still ongoing, having been presented to and remaining pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The details of this case, including Mr. Beustring's arguments and the underlying facts and procedural history, are set forth in detail in two orders entered by the district court, dated, respectively, March 1, 2004, and March 23, 2004, and we need not repeat them here. In those orders, the district court concluded that "it should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the case at bar under the Younger/Middlesex abstention doctrine."⁽¹⁾ Accordingly, the court dismissed the action on that basis. Likewise, the district court denied the plaintiff/appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to vacate the judgment, citing the same grounds set forth in the court's initial opinion.

We have reviewed Mr. Beustring's arguments on appeal claiming that the district court erred in its judgment, and we are unpersuaded. Substantially for the reasons and on the grounds set forth in the district court's opinions referred to above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge

FOOTNOTES
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

^*.This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

^1.Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982).

(11442 bytes)

(6563 bytes)

Comments to: WebMaster, ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: September 30, 2005.
HTML markup © 2005, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2005/09/04-6091.htm.