Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Meghan Kelly, Applicant v. Disciplinary Counsel Patricia B. Swartz, et al.

Appendix A

Case: 21-3198 Document: 293-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2023

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Seemann

Nos. 21-3198 & 22-2079

neti

MEGHAN M. KELLY.

Appellant

Vv.

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PATRICIA B.

KATHLEEN M. VAVALA; DAVID A. WHI

INARY COUNSEL

OFFICE DISCIPLINARY COUNSE

LINARY COUNSEL;

L; BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL

aaa

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(District Court No. 1-21-cv-01499)

District Judge: Hon. Colm F. Connolly

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.

R. 34.1(a)

April 11, 2023

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and AMBRO,

a

JUDGMENT

a aaeemeneee

1 of 41

Case: 21-3198 Document 268-1 Page:2 Date Filed: 08/20/2023

This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District

Court for the District of Delaware and

was submitted on April 11, 2023, pursuant to

Third Circuit L.A.R. 34. I(a).

ferke,

DATE: April 20, 2023 2® at ae

ea d issued in lieu

; ga June 30, 2023

Teste: 2 this of Dadag ave. o

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2of 14

Case: 21-3198 Document: 205-2 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2023

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 21-3198 & 22-2079

MEGHAN M. KELLY,

Appellant

Vv.

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PATRICIA B. SWARTZ; DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

KATHLEEN M. VAVALA; DAVID A. WHITE

OFFICE DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COU

RT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE:

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATOR Y COMMITTEE; ATTORNEY GENERAL

DELAWARE

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(District Court No. 1-21-cv-01490)

District Judge: Hon. Colm F. Connolly

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1 (a)

April 11, 2023

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 20, 2023)

3 of 11

Case: 21-3198 Document: 205-2 Page:2 Date Filed: 06/30/2023

OPINION*

CHAGARES, Chief Judge.

Meghan Kelly, a Delaware attorney, filed a complaint for injunctive and related

relief to halt a state proceeding to adjust her bar status to “disability inactive” (the

“disability proceeding”). The disability proceeding has since concluded. For the reasons

that follow, we will dismiss the appeal in part as moot and affirm in part the District

Court’s judgment dismissing the complaint. We also will affirm the District Court’s

other orders, including its post-judgment orders denying reconsideration.

I!

Delaware’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (‘ODC”) informed Kelly in August

2021 that it had concerns about her fimess to practice law and requested that she

voluntarily submit to a mental health examination. Kelly refused an examination. The

ODC then informed her that it would petition the Preliminary Review Committee

(“PRC”)* to place her Delaware bar membership on disability inactive status.

Kelly responded by filing a 103-page pro se complaint in the United States District

" This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to 1.0.P. 5.7, does not

constitute binding precedent.

' Because we write for the parties, we recite only facts pertinent to our decision.

* The ODC is an independent arm of the Delaware Supreme Court that has authority to

recommend disciplinary action regarding the practice of law in Delaware. See Del.

Supreme Ct. Rule 64(e)(3).

* The PRC reviews the recommendations of the ODC following its initial investigation.

Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (“‘Del. Disc. Rules”) 3(a).

oi

4 of 11

Case: 21-3198 Document: 205-2. Page:3 Date Filed: 06/30/2023

Court for the District of Delaware naming the ODC and several of its officials, the PRC,

the Board of Professional Responsibility (“BPR”),* and the state Attomey General

(collectively referred to as “the defendants”). In it, she claims the defendants are

pursuing the disciplinary proceeding to malign and retaliate against her based on her

political and religious beliefs. Kelly’s complaint seeks injunctive relief and asserts

claims under § 1983, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, obstruction of

justice, and for injury to her reputation. She seeks relief in the form of an injunction,

attomeys’ fees, and “possibly” damages for emotional distress. Complaint 103.5

The District Court dismissed the complaint and denied related relief, including a

request for a preliminary injunction, concluding that it should abstain under Younger v,

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). It determined: (1) the disciplinary proceeding falls within an

“exceptional category” covered by Younger, see Sprint Comme’ns v. Jacobs, 571 US

69, 78 (2013); and (2), the disciplinary procecding is: (a) a state judicial proceeding that

(b) implicates important state interests and (c) allows an adequate Opportunity to raise

constitutional challenges, see Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ags’n,

457 U.S. 423, 432 (1983), Kelly timely appealed.

Kelly then filed in the District Court a “motion for reargument” and other

motions, which the court construed as seeking reconsideration under F cderal Rule of

“The BPR conducts hearings and makes findings, conclusions. and recommendations in

attomey discipline and disability matters. Del. Disc. Rule 2(a). The BPR submits its

report and recommendation to the Delaware Supreme Court for review. Del. Disc. Rule

oe).

> Page 103 of the Complaint appears to have been omitted from the Supplemental

Appendix.

3

5 of 11

Case: 21-3198 Document: 205-2 Page:4 Date Filed: 06/30/2023

Civil Procedure 59(e) and denied. Kelly filed an amended notice of appeal to incorporate

that order and continued filing motions in that court. She sought, among other things,

reconsideration of the reconsideration denial under Rules 52(b) and 59(e). The District

Court denied relief, and Kelly filed a second notice of appeal. The appeals have been

consolidated for all purposes.

The Delaware Supreme Court issued an order while the appeals were pending,

transterring Kelly to disability inactive status.® It noted that Kelly’s court filings “were

confusing and unfocused, irrelevant to the issues at hand, demonstrated a lack of

understanding of the role of courts, and were non-compliant with court rules.”

Supplemental Appendix (“Supp. App.”) 149. Due to Kelly’s religious objection to a

mental health examination, none was conducted. The Delaware Supreme Court instead

considered the record, noting that Kelly's “inability to make cogent le gal arguments,

present relevant evidence, or identify relevant legal authority is painfully clear from the

record.” Supp. App. 154. It concluded that Kelly’s “lack of competence to practice law

endangers prospective clients, the public, and the orderly administration of justice.”

Supp. App. 155. The court also considered and rejected Kellys constitutional claims.

Kelly’s bar status is now disability inactive and she cannot practice law in

Delaware. If she wishes to seek reinstatement, she must petition the Delaware Supreme

Court for reinstatement to active status. See Del. Disc. Rule 19(c).

® The Delaware Supreme Court appointed counsel for Kelly at no cost to her, but she

elected to proceed pro se.

4

6 of 11

Case: 21-3198 Document: 205-2 Page:5 Date Filed: 06/30/2023

Ih?

A.

Kelly’s complaint primarily seeks to vindicate First and F ourteenth Amendment

rights through an injunction to halt the disability proceeding. See Supp. App. 130-35;

see also Supp. App. 39 (“I brought this law suit .. . to enjoin proceedings brought by the

Defendants to place my attomey license on inactive disabled in violation of the First

Amendment . . . [and] Fourteenth Amendment... .”). Because Delaware since has

concluded the disability proceeding, the requested injunctive relief is no longer available,

That aspect of the complaint is therefore moot.® See Berger v. Cuyaho ga County Bar

Ass'n, 983 F.2d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 1993) (“f]ssuance of the [disciplinary] decision by the

Ohio Supreme Court moots plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against

detendants.”); Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 858 (9th Cir. 1992) (concluding that,

when the underlying disciplinary matter came to a close, “a request for injunctive relief

from those proceedings is now a moot issue”),

* Kelly invoked the District Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have

jurisdiction to review the District Court's judgment and orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

8 Kelly presents challenges to the Delaware Supreme Court's order adjusting her status,

claiming she was denied notice, discovery, an impartial judge, an ability to present

evidence and witnesses, and the like. These issues are beyond the scope of the current

appeal. After the District Court dismissed her complaint, Kelly moved to amend the

complaint to add claims concerning the Delaware Supreme Court's decision to adjust her

bar status and to add the Delaware Supreme Court as a party. It does not appear that the

District Court has ruled upon Kelly’s post-judgment motions, although it appears that

these attempts to pursue a federal court challenge to the Delaware Supreme Court’s order

would be barred. See, ¢.g., Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 865 (9th Cir. 1992)

(holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal court from reviewing state

court imposition of attomey discipline sanction).

Fort

Case: 21-3198 Document: 205-2 Page:6 Date Filed: 06/30/2023

B.

To the extent any of Kelly’s claims are not moot, we agree that the District Court

properly abstained under Younger. We review the District Court’s decision to abstain de

novo. PDX N..Jnc. v. Comm’ N.J. Dep’t of Labor, 978 F.34 871, 881 n.11.

Attomey discipline matters? fall within the narrow range of cases in which

Younger abstention may be appropriate. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden

State Bar Ass’n, 457 US. 423, 434 (1982). Younger abstention is therefore appropriate

where the disciplinary matter: (1) is a state judicial Proceeding that (2) implicates

important state interests and (3) provides an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional

challenges. Id. at 432. The burden rests on the plaintiff to show that the state procedures

do not provide an adequate opportunity to present the federal claims. See Schall y. Joyce,

885 F.2d 101, 107 (3d Cir, 1989).

Kelly argues that the disability proceeding did not permit her to present

constitutional claims. She contends, without legal support, that the Delaware Supreme

Court is “without subject matter jurisdiction” over her constitutional claims. Kelly Br.

15. Kelly points to no legal bar to bringing her constitutional challenges in the

disciplinary proceeding and thus fails to meet her burden.

” Delaware conducts attorney discipline and attorney disability matters in the same

manner. Del. Disc. Rule 19(c) (“The [disability] procedures and hearings shall be

conducted in the same manner as disciplinary proceedings.”). We therefore treat the

disability proceeding as equivalent to a disciplinary proceeding for purposes of our

analysis.

6

8 of 11

Case: 21-3198 Document: 205-2 Page:7 Date Filed: 06/30/2023

Kelly also contends that abstention was inappropriate due to “bad faith,

harassment, or extraordinary circumstances.” Kelly Br. 18. She is correct that, if shown,

bad faith, harassment, or extraordinary circumstances provide exceptions to Younger

abstention. See Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 435. Kelly metely presents conclusory

Statements in this regard, She has failed to support adequately her claim of bad faith,

harassment, or extraordinary circumstances to warrant 4 Younger exception.

Kelly finally claims that she seeks damages that are not available in the state

forum, and so her case should have been stayed under Younger rather than dismissed and

now should be permitted to proceed. We disagree because damages are unavailable.

Delaware’s Disciplinary Rules provide that the BPR, the PRC, the ODC and its members,

and others involved in the disciplinary process are “immune from civil suit for any

conduct in the discharge of their official duties.” Del. Disc. Rule 10.

C.

We review the District Court’s denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion,

See Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010). Kelly did not show an

intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to

correct a clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice, and thus did not meet the

standard for reconsideration. See Max’s Seafood Café ex rel, Lou-Ann. Inc. v.

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). The District Court therefore did not abuse

its discretion in denying relief.

9 of 11

Case: 21-3198 Document: 205-2 Page:8 Date Filed: 06/30/2023

D.

Kelly seeks review of every interim ruling the District Court made in her

proceeding. We have considered her arguments and the record below and conclude that

@

no relief is warranted.

HI.

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss as moot any claims conceming the

aspects of Kelly’s complaint that seek injunctive relief. We will affirm the remainder of

the District Court's judgment, its post-judgment orders, and all other orders on appeal. '

10 of 11

Case: 21-3198 Document: 205-3 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2023

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

PATRICIA S. DODSZUWEIT Unirep STATES Cotrr OF Apreats TELEPHONE

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

CLERK 21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 245-597-2995

60! MARKET STREET

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1796

Website: WWw.ca3.uscourts.gov

June 30, 2023

Randall C. Lohan

United States District Count for the District of Delaware

J. Caleb Boggs Federal Buj Iding

844 N King Street

Wilmington, DE 19801

RE: Meghan Kelly v. Patricia Swartz, et al

Case Numbers: 21-3198 & 22-2079

District Court Case Number: 1-21-cv-01490

Dear District Court Clerk,

Counsel are advised of the issuance of the mandate by copy of this letter. The certified judgment

or order is also enclosed showing costs taxed, if any.

For the Court,

s/ Patricia S. Dodszuweit

Clerk

s/ pdb Case Manager

cc:

Attomey General Delaware

Meghan M. Kelly

Caneel Radinson-Blasucci

Zi-Xiang Shen

11 of 11

Appendix B

Case: 21-3198 Document: 182-1

Page:1 DateF led: 04/20/2023

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

teat meena,

Nos. 21-3198 & 22-2079

MEGHAN M. KELLY,

Appellant

arte

On Appeal from the United §

for the District of

(District Court No. 1

District Judge: Hon, Cc

tates District Court

Delaware

-21-cv-0] 490)

olm EF, Connolly

Pett

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A,

R. 34.1(a)

April 11, 2023

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and AMBRO. Cireuit Judges

JUDGMENT

1 of 4

Case: 21-3198 Document: 182-1 Page:2 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District

Court for the District of Delaware and was submitted on April 11, 2023, pursuant to

Third Circuit L.A.R, 34.1 (a).

On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the

appeal is hereby DISMISSED IN PART as MOOT and the remainder of the District

Court’s judgment entered November 2, 2021, is hereby AFFIRMED. Additionally, the

District Court’s other orders, including its post-judgment orders entered December 22.

2021, and April 26, 2022, are hereby AFFIRMED. All of the above in accordance with

the opinion of this Court, Each party to bear its own costs.

ATTEST:

s/ Patricia S. Dodszuweit

Clerk

DATE: April 20, 2023

2 of 4

Case: 21-3198 Document: 182-2 Page:1 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

PATRICIA S. DODSZUWEIT Unrrep States Court or Appgats TELEPHONE

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

CLERK 24400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 215-597-2995

601 MARKET STREET

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1790

Website: WWw.ca3.uscourts.gov

April 20, 2023

Attorney General Delaware

Office of Attomey General of Delaware

Delaware Department of Justice

820 N French Street

Carvel Office Building

Wilmingion, DE 19801

Meghan M. Kelly

34012 Shawnee Drive

Dagsboro, DE 19939

Caneel Radinson-Blasucci

Office of Attorney General of Delaware

Delaware Department of Justice

820 N French Street

Carvel Office Building

Wilmington, DE 19801

Zi-Xiang Shen

Office of Attorney General of Delaware

Delaware Department of Justice

820 N French Street

Carvel Office Building

Wilmington, DE 1980]

RE: Meghan Kelly v. Patricia Swartz, et al

Case Numbers: 21-3198 & 22-2079

District Court Case Number: 1-21-cv-01490

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Today, April 20, 2023 the Court entered its judgment in the above-captioned matter pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 36,

at of 4

Case: 21-3198 Document: 182-2 Page:2 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

Procedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir.

LAR 35 and 40, and Summarized below,

Time for F iling:

14 days after entry of judgment.

45 days after entry of judgment in a ciy;] case if the United States iS @ party,

P. 32(g).

15 pages if hand or type written,

Attachments:

A copy of the Panel’s opinion and Judgment only.

Certificate of service,

Certificate of compliance if petition is produced bya computer,

No other attachments are Permitted without first obtaining leave from the Court,

Ss

A party who is entitled to costs pursuant to Fed.R.App.P, 39 must file an itemized and verified

bill of costs within 14 days from the catty of judgment. The bill of costs must be Submitted on

the proper form which is available on the court's website.

Please consult the Rules of the Supreme Count of the United States regarding the timing and

requirements for filing a petition for writ of certiorari.

For the Court,

s/ Patricia S. Dodszuweit

Clerk

s/ pdb Case Manager 267-299-4943

4 of4

Case: 21-3198 Document: 184 Page:1 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 21«3198 & 22-2079

MEGHAN M. KELLY,

Appellant

¥.

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PATRICIA B. SWARTZ; DISCIPLIN

KATHLEEN M. VAVALA; DAVID A. WHI

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(District Court No. 1-21 -cv-01490}

District Judge: Hon. Colm F. Connolly

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

April 11, 2023

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 20, 2023)

Case: 21-3198 Document: 181 Page:2 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

OPINION*

CHAGARES, Chief Judge.

Meghan Kelly, a Delaware attorney, filed a complaint for injunctive and related

relief to halt a state Procecding to adjust her bar status to “disability inactive” {the

“disability procceding”). The disability Proceeding has since concluded. For the reasons

that follow, we will dismiss the appeal in part as moot and affirm in part the District

Court’s judgment dismissing the complaint. We also will affirm the District Court's

other orders, including its post-judgment orders denying reconsideration.

I!

Delaware’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”)? informed Kelly in August

2021 that it had concerns about her fitness to Practice law and requested that she

voluntarily submit to a mental health examination. Kelly refused an examination. The

ODC then informed her that it would petition the Preliminary Review Committee

(“PRC”) to place her Delaware bar membership on disability inactive status.

Kelly responded by filing a 103-page Bro se complaint in the United States District

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to 1.O.P. 5.7, does not

constitute binding precedent.

1

Zz

The ODC ts an independent arm of the Delaware Supreme Court that has authority to

Supreme Ct. Rule 64(e)(3).

} The PRC reviews the recommendations of the ODC following its initial investigation.

Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (Del. Disc. Rules”) 3(a).

2

Case: 21-3198 Document: 181 Page:3 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

Court for the District of Delaware naming the ODC and several of its officials, the PRC,

the Board of Professional Responsibility (“BPR”),* and the state Attorney General

(collectively referred to as “the defendants”), In it, she claims the defendants are

Kelly then filed in the District Court a “motion for reargument” and other

motions, which the court construed as secking fconsideration under Federal Rule of

Case: 21-3198 Document: 181 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

Civil Procedure 59(e) and denied. Kelly filed an amended notice of appeal to incorporate

that order and continued filing motions in that court. She sought, among other things,

reconsideration of the reconsideration denial under Rules 52(b) and 59(e). The District

Court denied relief, and Kelly filed a second notice of appeal. The appeals have been

consolidated for all purposes.

The Delaware Supreme Court issued an order while the appeals were pending,

transferring Kelly to disability inactive status. It noted that Kelly’s court filings “were

confusing and unfocused, irrelevant to the issues at hand, demonstrated a lack of

understanding of the role of courts, and were non-compliant with court rules.”

Supplemental Appendix (“Supp. App.”) 149. Due to Kelly’s religious objection to a

mental health examination, none was conducted. The Delaware Supreme Court instead

considered the record, noting that Kelly’s “inability to make cogent legal arguments,

present relevant evidence, or identify relevant legal authority is painfully clear from the

record.” Supp. App. 154. It concluded that Kelly’s “lack of competence to practice law

endangers prospective clients, the public, and the orderly administration of justice.”

Supp. App. 155. The court also considered and rejected Kelly’s constitutional claims.

Kelly’s bar status is now disability inactive and she cannot practice law in

Delaware. If she wishes to seek reinstatement, she must petition the Delaware Supreme

Court for reinstatement to active Status. See Del. Disc. Rule 19(e).

* The Delaware Supreme Court appointed counsel for Kelly at no cost to her, but she

elected to proceed pro se.

4

Case: 21-3198 Document: 181 . Page:5 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

II.”

A.

Kelly’s complaint primarily seeks to vindicate First and Fourteenth Amendment

rights through an injunction to halt the disability proceeding. Sce Supp. App. 130-35:

see also Supp. App. 39 (“I brought this law suit... to enjoin proceedings brought by the

Defendants to place my attorney license on inactive disabled in violation of the First

Amendment , . . [and] Fourteenth Amendment. , . .”). Because Delaware since has

concluded the disability proceeding, the requested injunctive relief is no longer available.

That aspect of the complaint is therefore moot.® See Berger v. Cuyahoga County Bar

Ass'n, 983 F.2d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 1993) (“{T]ssuance of the [disciplinary] decision by the

Ohio Supreme Court moots plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against

defendants.”); Partington v. Gedan, 96] F.2d 852, 858 (9th Cir. 1992) (concluding that,

when the underlying disciplinary matter came to a close, “a request for injunctive relief

from those proceedings is now a moot issue”).

. i

<

3

oa

ie

he

Ep.

C3

o

et

a

O

=

t

wn

Kea

G

ci,

2)

on

=

Es

5

r=

mt

e

bar)

ba

co

c

wn

2)

hrD

os

uw

Ww

rok

wa

Vc have

would be barred. See, ¢.g., Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.3d 852, 865 (9th Cir. 1992)

(holding that the Rooker-F eldman doctrine barred federal court from reviewing state

court imposition of attorney discipline sanction),

Case: 21-3198 Document: 181 Page:6 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

B.

To the extent any of Kelly’s claims are not moot, we agree that the District Court

properly abstained under Younger. We review the District Court’s decision to abstain de

nove. PDX N., Inc. v. Comm’r N.J. Dep’t of Labor, 978 F.3d 871, 881 n.11.

Attomey discipline matters? fall within the narrow range of cases in which

Younger abstention may be appropriate. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden

State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S, 423, 434 (1982). Younger abstention is therefore appropriate

where the disciplinary matter: (1) is a state judicial proceeding that (2) implicates

important state interests and (3) provides an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional

challenges. Id. at 432. The burden rests on the plaintiff to show that the State procedures

do not provide an adequate opportunity to present the federal claims. See Schall v, Joyce,

885 F.2d 101, 107 (3d Cir. 1989).

Kelly argues that the disability proceeding did not permit her to present

constitutional claims. She contends, without legal support, that the Delaware Supreme

Court is “without subject matter jurisdiction” over her constitutional claims. Kelly Br.

15. Kelly points to no legal bar to bringing her constitutional challenges in the

disciplinary proceeding and thus fails to meet her burden.

° Delaware conducts attorney discipline and attorney disability matters in the same

manner. Del. Disc. Rule 19(c) (“The [disability] procedures and hearings shall be

conducted in the same manner as disciplinary Proceedings.”). We therefore treat the

disability proceeding as equivalent to a disciplinary proceeding for purposes of our

analysis.

6

Case: 21-3198 Document: 181 Page:7 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

Kelly also contends that abstention was inappropriate due to “bad faith,

harassment, or extraordinary circumstances,” Kelly Br. 18. She is correct that, if shown,

bad faith, harassment, or extraordinary circumstances provide exceptions to Younger

abstention. See Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 435. Kelly merely presents conclusory

Statements in this regard. She has failed to Support adequately her claim of bad faith,

harassment, or extraordinary circumstances to warrant a Younger exception.

Kelly finally claims that she secks damages that are not available in the state

forum, and so her case should have been stayed under Younger rather than dismissed and

now should be permitted to proceed. We disagree because damages are unavailable.

Delaware’s Disciplinary Rules provide that the BPR, the PRC, the ODC and its members,

and others involved in the disciplinary process are “immune from civil suit for any

conduct in the discharge of their official duties.” Del. Disc. Rule 10.

C.

We review the District Court’s denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion.

See Lazaridis v. Wehmer, §9] F 3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010). Kelly did not show an

intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to

correct a clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice, and thus did not meet the

standard for reconsideration. See Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann. Ine. y,

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). The District Court therefore did not abuse

its discretion in denying relief.

Case: 21-3198 Document: 181 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

Dz.

Kelly seeks review of every interim ruling the District Court made in her

proceeding. We have considered her arguments and the record below and conclude that

no relief is warranted.

Hl.

For the foregoing reasons, we wil] dismiss as moot any claims concerning the

aspects of Kelly’s complaint that seek injunctive relief. We will affirm the remainder of

the District Court’s judgment, its post-judgment orders, and all other orders on appeal. !°

"© The defendants’ motion for sumunary affirmance is denied. The defendants’ motion to

supplement the appendix is granted. Kelly’s motion to correct an error of fact is

considered but no action will be taken, as it is unclear what relief it seeks. Kelly’s

motion for reconsideration is denied.

Appendix C

Case: 21-3198 Document: 204 Page:1 Date Filed: 06/22/2023

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(tenascin eee

No. 21-3198 & 22-2079

erent nrrcinartinny

MEGHAN M, KELLY,

Appellant

A B. SWARTZ; DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

KATHLEEN M. VAVALA; DAVID A, WHITE, CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL;

RESPONSIBILITY OF

TE OF DELAWARE: PRELIMINARY

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(District Court No. 1-2] -CV-01490)

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

Present: CHAGARES, Chief Judge. SCIRICA, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

The petition for Tehearing filed by Meghan M. Kelly, Appellant in the above-

entitled case having been submitted to the judges who Participated in the decision of this Court,

it is hereby

ORDERED that the petition for rehearing by the panel is denied.

BY THE COURT,

s/Michael A. Chagares __

Chief Circuit Judge

Dated: June 22, 2023

PDB/cc: Meghan M, Kelly

All Counsel of Record

Appendix D

Case: 21-3198 Document: 203 Page:1 Date Filed: 06/20/2023

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 21-3198 & 22.2079

MEGHAN M. KELLY,

Appellant

v.

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL PATRICIA B. SWARTZ; et al.

(D. Del. No. 1-21-cv-01490)

Present: SCIRICA, Circuit Judge

1. Motion filed by Appellant Meghan M. Kelly in 21-3198, 22-2079 to recuse

Honorable Judge Anthony J. Scirica;

tN

Motion filed by Appellant Meghan M. Kelly in 21-3198, 22-2079 for caveat to

Motion for this Court to recuse Judge Scirica to move him for judicial

consideration of drafting laws to prevent non-lawyers and non-~judges from

practicing law or taki g the place of people judges without government

authority;

Respectfully,

Clerk/pdb

ORDER _

a a

The foregoing motions are denied,

By the Court,

Circuit Judge

Dated: June 20, 2023

PDB/cc: Meghan M. Kelly

All Counsel of Record

Appendix EF

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-66]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]