Dean

MEMORANDUM *

The district court dismissed this § 1983 suit, holding it barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. Because we agree that collateral estoppel bars the suit, we affirm the dismissal. We do not reach the district court’s alternative holding that it was required to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). As the facts are known to the parties, we discuss them here only as necessary to explain our decision.

On August 5, 2000, Dean filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , seeking compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and injunctive relief. The complaint alleges that at the time the court ordered him to attend sex offender treatment, the court did not impose, or indicate that Dean would be subject to, the condition that he not have contact with his children. He argues that the conditions, as imposed by his probation officer and the treatment program, violated his fundamental right to live with his family without due process of law.

Two days after filing his § 1983 complaint, on August 7, 2000, Dean moved in Oregon state court to modify his probation and remove the condition that he undergo…