1201, 163 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2006) (per curiam; quotation omitted). As the Supreme Court has recently explained, the doctrine does not apply to parallel state and federal litigation. See id. at 1201, 126 S.Ct. 1198. More specifically, it does not deprive lower federal courts of jurisdiction if the federal court suit was filed before the end of the state court’s appeal process. Guttman, 446 F.3d at 1031-32 (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 290-91, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005)). At the time Buck filed this case, there is no indication that the Utah courts had yet reached a final judgment in either his criminal case or his parallel civil litigation. Therefore, a dismissal under Rooker-Feldman would be inappropriate. See Guttman, 446 F.3d at 1032 (<HOLDING>). 2. Younger Abstention Alternatively, the
holding that plaintiff who filed suit in federal court could not later file a declaratory judgment petition in state court making allegations substantially similar to those made in federal court and seeking resolution of primarily the same issues holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine holding that federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear case notwithstanding rookerfeldman doctrine where plaintiff filed federal suit while certiorari petition to new mexico supreme court was pending in similar state court action recognizing that pleadings filed in federal court while the federal court has jurisdiction become part of the state court record on remand