Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Maurice Grayton, Petitioner v. California, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILED

SEP 192018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

NAURICE GRAYTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

V.

No.

18-55295

D.C. No.

3: 17-cv-0233 6-CAB-JIMA

Southern District of California,

San Diego

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: HAWKINS, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Upon a review of the record, the opening brief, and the responses to the

court's order to show cause, we conclude this appeal is frivolous. We therefore

deny appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2), see 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a), and dismiss this appeal as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) (court shall dismiss case at any time, if court determines it is frivolous

or malicious).

DISMISSED.

AT/MOATT

Case 3:17-cv-02336-CAB-JMA Document 12 Filed 02/27/18 PagelD.210 Page 1 of 1

/

United States District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Maurice Grayton, Student-victim

Civil Action No. 17-cv-2336-CAB-JMA

IN

State of California; Committee of Bar

Examiners, (the Committee)

Subcommittee of Examinations; Lisa

Cummins; Patrick Dixon; Floyd

Chapman; Chairpersons; DOES 1-50

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried

or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendants' motion to dismiss based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is Granted. The complaint is

Dismissed without leave to amend in this Court, but without prejudice to re-filing in state court. It is So

Ordered.

Date:

2/27/18

CLERK OF COURT

JOHN MORRILL, Clerk of Court

By: s/ J. Gutierrez

J. Gutierrez, Deputy

3:17-cv-02336-CAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 02/27/18 PagelD.207 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

I

MAURICE GRAYTON,

Case No.: 17-CV-2336-CAB-JMA

Plaintiff,

9

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

10

V.

11

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS et [Doc. No. 7]

al.,

12

13

Defendants.

14

15

16

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants State of

17

California Committee of Bar Examiners Subcommittee on Examinations (the

18

"Committee"), and Lisa Cummins, Patrick Dixon, and Floyd Chapman, Chairpersons (the

19

"Individual Defendants"). Plaintiff Maurice Grayton, appearing pro Se, filed an opposition

20

to the motion, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral argument. The

21

motion is granted.

22

I.

23

Applicants to the California bar who do not attend law schools accredited by the

24

American Bar Association are required to pass the First Year Law Students Exam

25

("FYLSE"). Grayton took the 2016 FYLSE but did not pass. The complaint contains

26

several explanations for why Grayton did not pass the exam, including: (1) a malfunction

27

of the test-taking software on Grayton's personal computer; (2) the inclusion of an

28

improper criminal procedure question; and (3) that Defendants improperly engaged a

Background

1

17-CV-2336-CAB-JMA I

;ase 3:17-cv-02336-CAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 02/27/18 PagelD.208 Page 2 of 3

1

psychometrician to determine how to adjust the grades on the criminal procedure question

2

leading to all test-takers receiving a 100 score on that question which allegedly resulted in

3

the remaining three exam questions being graded more stringently to maintain an 80%

4

failure rate. The complaint also alleges that Grayton is disabled, but it admits that he

5

received a reasonable accommodation of time and a half to complete the test.

6

After receiving his failing score, Grayton asked Defendants to waive the FYLSE

7

requirement, and Defendants refused. Following this refusal, Grayton filed a lawsuit in

8

this Court, but he subsequently dismissed the lawsuit after Defendants moved to dismiss,

9

stating that he intended to petition the California Supreme Court. See Doc. No. 12 in Case

10

No. 17cv445-CAB-JMA. On September 20, 2017, the California Supreme Court denied

11

Grayton's petition for a writ of mandate. [Doe. No. 7-3 at 94.]' Grayton then filed the

12

instant lawsuit with a complaint that is virtually identical both to his prior complaint here

13

and to his petition to the California Supreme Court. [Doe. No. 7-3 at 21-5 1, 55-9 1.] The

14

complaint asserts nine claims2 and the prayer for relief seeks a waiver of the FYLSE

15

requirement along with general, consequential, and punitive damages arising out of

16

Defendants' actions related to the administration and grading of the FYLSE and their

17

refusal to grant Grayton a waiver.

The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

18

II.

19

Under the Rooker—Feldman doctrine, "a party losing in state court is barred from

20

seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United

21

States District Court based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants request judicial notice of several documents, including Grayton's petition to the California

Supreme Court and the order denying that petition. Grayton did not oppose the request, and the Court

finds the documents appropriate for judicial notice. Accordingly, Defendants' request is granted.

2

The claims are: (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; (3) negligent training, retaining, disciplining,

supervising, managing, directing and controlling; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5)

negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

California Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 50-51); (8) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101; and (9) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962.

2

17-CV-2336-CAB-JMA

3:17-cv-02336-CAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 02/27/18 PagelD.209 Page 3 of 3

1

the loser's federal rights." Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994) (citing

2

District of Columbia Court ofAppeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), and Rooker

3

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923)). "The Supreme Court has recognized that

4

the doctrine is especially appropriate when applied to a state's regulation of its own bar."

5

Craig v. State Bar of Cal., 141 F.3d 1353, 1354 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus:

6

7

8

9

10

11

Lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over [a state supreme

court's denial of bar admission to a particular applicant], even if

unconstitutional action by the state is alleged, because exercising jurisdiction

would involve the review of a final judicial decision of the highest state court

in a particular case. Orders of a state court relating to the admission of an

individual to the state bar may be reviewed only by the United States Supreme

Court on writ of certiorari to the state court, and not by means of an original

action in a lower federal court.

12 lId. (internal 'citations omitted). Here, Grayton's complaint is a de facto appeal of the

13

California Supreme Court's denial of his petition for writ of mandate. Indeed, the

14

complaint is virtually identical the Grayton's petition to the California Supreme Court.

15

[Doc. No. 7-3 at 55.] Grayton is asking this Court to review the California Supreme Court's

16

denial of his petition, and all of the injuries alleged arise from that denial. Only the United

17 I States Supreme Court may undertake this review. This Court lacks jurisdiction.

18

III. Disposition

19

Defendants' motion to dismiss based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is

20

GRANTED. The complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend in this Court, but

21

without prejudice to re-filing in state court.

22

It is SO ORDERED.

90=

23 I Dated: February 27, 2018

24

25

-

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

United States District Judge

26

27

28

3

17-CV-2336-CAB-JMA