declining to find private right of action under 11 10 || U.S.C. §§ 105, 524
How later courts described this case
- declining to find private right of action under 11 10 || U.S.C. §§ 105, 524
- barring challenge based on “‘alleged deprivations of federally protected 11 due process and equal protection rights’”
- noting Rooker Feldman doctrine “is especially appropriate when 6 applied to a state’s regulation of its own bar”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DRAGO C. BARIC, ) NO. CV 21-3968-ODW (AGR)
12 )
Plaintiff, )
13 )
v. )
14 ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, et ) THE COURT SHOULD NOT
15 al., ) RECOMMEND DISMISSAL OF
) THE COMPLAINT
16 Defendants. )
)
17 )
18
19 For the reasons set forth below, the court orders Plaintiff to show cause in
20 writing, on or before June 17, 2021, why the court should not recommend
21 dismissal of the complaint.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 I.
2 THE COMPLAINT
3 According to the complaint, Plaintiff has been disbarred by order of the
4 California Supreme Court.1 (Compl. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff has filed suit against five
5 categories of defendants: (1) the State Bar of California (“State Bar”), (2) its
6 Office of Chief Trial Counsel and individual prosecutors A. Hernandez, D.
7 Massey, and B. Tady; (3) the State Bar Court and individual Judges C. Purcell, W.
8 McGill, and R. Stovitz; (4) the California Supreme Court and its Clerk, J.
9 Navarette, in his official capacity; and (5) the California Franchise Tax Board
10 (“FTB”).
11 II.
12 ROOKER FELDMAN DOCTRINE
13 The complaint asks the court to “vacate the findings of misconduct by
14 Defendant State Bar Court and vacate all sanctions imposed thereby,” “reverse
15 Plaintiff’s disbarment by Defendant Supreme Court effective May 10, 2019" and
16 “restore Plaintiff’s name to the active roll of attorneys in the state of California
17 nunc pro tunc to that date.” (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 88.)
18 This court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint under the
19 Rooker Feldman doctrine. “[U]nder . . . the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower
20 federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final
21 state-court judgments.” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006) (per curiam).
22 Only the United States Supreme Court may review final judgments of the state’s
23 highest court by writ of certiorari. 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
24 “Stated simply, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars suits ‘brought by state-
25 court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered
26 before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review
27
1 According to the online docket in Plaintiff’s criminal case, the next
28 hearing is set for June 10, 2019.
1 and rejection of those judgments.’” Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050
2 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Dencer v. Cal. State Bar, 713 Fed. Appx. 617,
3 618 (9th Cir. 2018) (disbarment proceedings); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163
4 (9th Cir. 2003); Craig v. State Bar of California, 141 F.3d 1353, 1354 & n.1 (9th
5 Cir. 1998) (noting Rooker Feldman doctrine “is especially appropriate when
6 applied to a state’s regulation of its own bar”). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars
7 review “even where the challenge to the state court decision involves federal
8 constitutional issues.” Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026,
9 1029 (9th Cir. 2001); see D. C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 485
10 (1983) (barring challenge based on “‘alleged deprivations of federally protected
11 due process and equal protection rights’”) (citation omitted).
12 Plaintiff unequivocally seeks to have the disbarment proceedings against
13 him overturned. This court lacks jurisdiction to hear such claims under the
14 Rooker Feldman doctrine. To the extent Plaintiff relies on the Declaratory
15 Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2001, the Act does not provide an independent basis
16 for jurisdiction in federal court. Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 79 (9th Cir. 1983).
17 III.
18 IMMUNITY
19 The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for monetary relief against the State
20 Bar of California, its Office of Chief Trial Counsel, the State Bar Court, the
21 California Supreme Court, the California Franchise Tax Board, and all individual
22 defendants in their official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hirsh v. Justices of
23 the Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Kentucky v.
24 Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 n.17 (1985).
25 To the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from judges, “state judges
26 are absolutely immune from liability for their judicial acts.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
27 U.S. 325, 334 (1983); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978). This is
28 true “even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to
1 have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Id. Judicial immunity applies when a
2 plaintiff alleges the judge erred or failed to comply with due process. Id. at 359-
3 60; Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1985). “Nor is judicial immunity
4 lost by allegations that a judge conspired with one party to rule against another
5 party.” Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1996). Judicial immunity
6 can be overcome only in two circumstances: (1) “nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions
7 not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity,” or (2) actions “taken in the complete
8 absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per
9 curiam). Here, Plaintiff challenges judicial rulings. Presiding over court
10 proceedings and issuing rulings are acts normally performed by a judge in his or
11 her judicial capacity. Id. at 12; Moore, 96 F.3d at 1244. The scope of jurisdiction
12 is interpreted broadly for purposes of judicial immunity. Stump, 435 U.S. at 356.
13 “The Bar Court judges and prosecutors have quasi-judicial immunity from
14 monetary damages.” Hirsh, 67 F.3d at 715.
15 Individuals are not proper defendants under Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §
16 12132; Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th 2002) (“ADA applies only to
17 public entities”).
18 Moreover, the ADA claim does not appear to make sense. Plaintiff alleges
19 Defendants violated the ADA when they concealed the existence of, failed to
20 advise him of, and prevented him from, the Alternative Discipline Program
21 (“ADP”). (Compl. ¶ 44.) The State Bar Court’s Review Department affirmed the
22 hearing judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s request for referral to the ADP because
23 Plaintiff had previously completed the ADP program in connection with his prior
24 third disciplinary matter. In re Baric, Case No. 17-O-00030, Opinion at 3-4 (Dec.
25 6, 2018) (available at www.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/105383). With
26 Plaintiff having previously completed the ADP program and having requested
27 another referral to it in his fourth disciplinary matter, Plaintiff’s ADA claim appears
28 implausible.
1 IV.
2 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF BANKRUPTCY ORDER OF DISCHARGE
3 In his eighth claim for relief, Plaintiff alleges that his most recent Chapter 7
4 bankruptcy petition was discharged on November 15, 2017 and that the State Bar,
5 | through the FTB, has taken unlawful action to collect on discharged debts.
6] (Compl. If 83-84.)
7 Plaintiff does not have a private right of action for violation of a bankruptcy
8 || discharge order in the district court. Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d
502, 507-10 (9th Cir. 2002) (declining to find private right of action under 11
10 || U.S.C. §§ 105, 524). This court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim.’
11 V.
12 ORDER
13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that on or before June 17, 2021, Plaintiff
14 || shall show cause in writing why this court should not recommend dismissal of the
15 complaint. In the absence of a viable federal claim for relief, it will be
16 || recommended that the court decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state law
17 | claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir.
18) 2001).
19 If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order to show cause by June 17,
20 || 2021, then the court may recommend dismissal of the complaint.
21
Wins A Keenbag,
23 | DATED: May 14, 2021
24 United States Magistrate Judge
25
26
27 ? Plaintiff does not allege that he initiated any violation proceedings in the
28 paceding The court expresses no view as to the merits of such a