Mehdipour v. Snowden

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 4 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ALI MEHDIPOUR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-6204
(D.C. No. 98-CV-375)
MICHAEL SNOWDEN; RUSSELL (W.D. Okla.)
HALL; VICKIE ROBERTSON;
CHARLES HILL; NANCY COATS;
BOB MACY; LISA HAMMOND,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, BARRETT, and KELLY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Ali Mehdipour filed suit in federal district court seeking an order
to enjoin an ongoing Oklahoma state court criminal prosecution. Specifically,
plaintiff requested the federal court to require the state court to hold a hearing to
determine whether plaintiff’s arrest on July 31, 1997, was supported by probable
cause. The federal district court applied the Younger abstention doctrine and
dismissed the action without prejudice. See Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37(1971). Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his case. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s decision to abstain pursuant to
Younger . See Taylor v. Jaquez , 126 F.3d 1294, 1296 (10th Cir. 1997), cert.
denied , 118 S. Ct. 1187 (1998). A federal court must abstain from exercising
jurisdiction when the following three conditions are met: (1) there is an ongoing
state criminal proceeding, (2) the state court provides an adequate forum to hear
the claims plaintiff raised in the federal case, 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. at 1297.
On appeal, plaintiff argues only that the state authorities arrested him
without probable cause. He has not addressed whether Younger abstention
applies or how the district court may have erred in deciding to abstain, despite the
-2-
decisive nature of the issue. “This is not adequate appellate argument.”
Brownlee v. Lear Siegler Mgmt. Servs. Corp. , 15 F.3d 976, 977 (10th Cir. 1994);
see also Olson v. Coleman , 997 F.2d 726, 728 (10th Cir. 1993) (finding appeal
frivolous where appellant failed “to raise a single, specific allegation of error by
the district court”). Nevertheless, applying the criteria set forth above, we hold
that under Younger the ongoing state criminal proceedings dictate that the federal
court abstain from exercising jurisdiction.
Plaintiff argues that the state court prosecution was brought in bad faith.
An exception to the general rule that a federal court may not enjoin a pending
state court criminal prosecution is a prosecution commenced in bad faith. See
Younger , 401 U.S. at 53-54; Phelps v. Hamilton , 59 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (10th
Cir. 1995). We do not address the merits of this claim, however, because the
claim was raised for the first time on appeal, see Walker v. Mather (In re Walker) ,
959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992) (appellate court will not consider issue not
presented to district court), and it presents only conclusory allegations, see Hall v.
Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (unsupported conclusory
allegations insufficient to state claim). Plaintiff’s argument that he should have
been permitted to conduct discovery is also infirm because it was not presented to
the district court and it does not demonstrate how discovery would have permitted
him to resist Younger abstention. Cf. Smith v. Kitchen , 156 F.3d 1025, 1029
-3-
(10th Cir. 1997) (appellant failed to show how discovery would be material to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal; discovery issue not raised in district court).
“Our conclusion that Younger abstention applies ends the matter.” Taylor ,
126 F.3d at 1298. Plaintiff’s motion to expedite the appeal is denied.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
James E. Barrett
Senior Circuit Judge
-4-