“The general rule is that a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.”
How later courts described this case
- “The general rule is that a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.”
- “[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 24-50260 Document: 66-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 24-50260 November 27, 2024
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Edward Turnbull, IV,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas;
Commission for Lawyer Discipline; Office of the Chief
Disciplinary Counsel; Seana Willing; Amanda M. Kates;
John S. Brannon; Timothy J. Baldwin; Daniel Martinez;
Daniela Grosz; Jenny Hodgkins; Laura Gibson; Cindy V.
Tisdale; Sylvia Borunda Firth; Chad Baruch; Benny
Agosto, Jr.; et al.,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:23-CV-314
______________________________
Before Dennis, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-50260 Document: 66-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2024
No. 24-50260
Plaintiff-Appellant Edward Turnbull, IV brought a lawsuit against
Defendant-Appellees the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas
(“SBOT”), the Commission for Lawyer Discipline (“CLD”), the Office of
the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and over fifty individuals associated with
SBOT and CLD. Plaintiff submitted state bar grievances against three
attorneys representing Microsoft in a dispute between Plaintiff and
Microsoft. The grievances were dismissed, and no action was taken against
the attorneys. Plaintiff brought the instant federal lawsuit asserting that the
state bar’s dismissal of the grievances violated his rights. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleged: (1) a federal equal protection claim because his grievances
were treated differently than others; (2) a federal free speech and expression
claim because Defendants’ actions caused him to suffer an injury that would
chill the speech of a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage
in filing grievances under the Texas grievance process; (3) a state due process
claim because Defendants deprived Plaintiff of the right to a full and fair
explanation for why his grievances were dismissed; and (4) a state law equal
protection claim because Defendants treated Plaintiff differently than other
similarly situated complainants. The district court dismissed each of the
federal claims for lack of Article III standing and dismissed the state law
claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
We agree with the district court’s disposition. A panel of our court has
held that a plaintiff generally has no standing to pursue complaints about the
prosecution of state bar grievances against individuals other than themselves.
See, e.g., Martinez v. State Bar of Tex., 797 F. App’x 167, 168 (5th Cir. 2020);
see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen
lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of
another.”). Plaintiff has presented no compelling reason why Martinez
should not apply here; the district court therefore properly dismissed
Plaintiff’s federal claims for lack of Article III standing. Similarly, we affirm
2
Case: 24-50260 Document: 66-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/27/2024
No. 24-50260
the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining state law claims. See Brookshire Bros. Holding v. Dayco
Prods., Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009) (“The general rule is that a
court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims
when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.”).
AFFIRMED.
3