The Oregon Supreme Court has adjudged appellant in contempt of court for practicing law while under court order of suspension of his right to practice. State ex rel. Oregon .State Bar v. Lenske, 243 Or. 477, 405 P.2d 510, 407 P.2d 250 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 943, 86 S.Ct. 1460, 16 L.Ed.2d 541 (1966). Claiming violation of his civil rights appellant has brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

*521 He seeks injunction against enforcement of the contempt order 2 and has named as defendants the members of the Oregon Supreme Court and the Board of Governors of the Oregon State Bar. Summary judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants and this appeal followed.

The members of the State Bar Board of Governors are not proper parties. Clark v. State of Washington, 366 F.2d 678 (9th Cir. 1966); Hackin v. Lockwood, 361 F.2d 499 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 960, 87 S.Ct. 396, 17 L.Ed.2d 305 (1966). Upon this basis judgment is affirmed as to those appel-lees.

„ , , ,, , OD tt c n s ñoco -i Oregon contends that 28 U.S.C. § 2283 3 . , ,. . . . ?. precludes the granting of injunctive re- „ le . e agree.

Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 constitutes an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 2283 is a question that has had the attention of the courts of appeals 4 but upon which the Supreme Court has not yet spoken, However, if an exception is created it is clear that orderly state proceedings are not to be disrupted save under extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury is threatened to federally created rights. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1116,14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965); see also Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 88 S.Ct. 1335, 20 L.Ed.2d 182 (1968).

We do not find such circumstances here. There is no suggestion of bad faith in the state action taken. Habeas corpus remains available should imprisonment resutt-

Judgment affirmed.