v. Countrywide Home Loans, 389 F.3d 1144, 1147 (10th Cir.2004). Rehearsing the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, Mr. Calvert asks this Court to enjoin any future actions to enforce the state court’s October 2003 order against him, and to award him damages for the losses he has suffered by complying with that order. As is clear from the relief sought, see Crutch-field, 389 F.3d at 1147-48, the injury of which Mr. Calvert complains arises from the state court judgment itself. Were we to grant Mr. Calvert’s petition, we would disrupt enforcement of that court order, as if we had declared it void. Since we have no power to review the order itself, we have no power to frustrate its enforcement. See Kiowa Indian Tribe v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1169 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The same is true for Mr. Calvert’s equal
holding that a trial court is free to make any order or direction in further progress of the case not inconsistent with the decision of the appellate court as to any question not settled by the appellate decision holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case holding  2254d authorizes federal court to review state courts decision only and not explanation of decision holding that a party losing in state court may not seek what would amount to appellate review of that decision in federal court based on the claim that the decision violates the losers federal rights