# Appendix — Curry v. State Bar of Wisconsin > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385009_0809%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1982 - **Citation:** 459 U.S. 990 ## Text 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX __ PAGES Opinion at 81-C-802, Order and dismissal of complaints, September 30, 1981. . APP. 9 Opinion at 81-C-802 .. . APP... 10-11 U. S. Ast. Ct. For The Eastern Dist. Of Wise, October 2, 1981 , Opinion at 81-2748... 6 6 „IPP. q 12-14 Dismissal and oreder for fifteen new briefs.to be filed by petitioners Dec.23, 1981. Opinion at 81-2796. . PP. 116 U.S. Ct. Of Appeals ordered all first briefs sent back to petitioner, Dec. 23, 1981 Opinion at 81-2768... „ „IP.. 17-18 Respondents ordered to file BRIEFS. and to show cause. April 8, 1982. Opinion at 81-2748 „6 2 2 0 „ APP... 219-21 Case Dismissed, U. S. Ct. Of Appeals For The 7th Cire, May 2h, 1982. Opinion at 81-2748... PP. 42 Nespondents did not apply for costs or award. August 16, 1982. 2 (continued from page one) PAGES Opinion at 81-2748... . . 0 „ „P. 2223 Petitioners filed for Default judgment in the U.S. Ct. Of Appeals, April 2, 1982. Opinion at 81-2748. „ „ IP.. 22 25 Responden.s refused to file briefs, as ordered by the Court, April 13, 1982. Opinion at 80-6577 . PP.... 26. THE U.S. 8. CT. Denied Petitioners per» mission to file under forma pauperis, June 15, 1982. Opinion of Victor A. Miller, Chrm. Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, assured petitioners grievances would be processed, January 1, 1980... . APP. 27-28 Opinion of Richard Cayo, Board of Atto:ney Professional Responsibility, stating our grievances would be investigated, Jan. 18, 1980. PP. 2629-31 Opinion of Cayo, Dismissed petitioners , grievances, March 25, 1980. App. 32-33 Opinion at 467-023 cccccccccccesAPPe 3-6 Petitioners action was dismissed. They knew nothing about, June 7, 1979. ) 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN FRANCES R. CURRY, ET Ale, PLAINTIFF, Ve 81-C-802 STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN, ET Ale, DEFENDANTS. DECISION and ORDER This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiff alleges that the de- fendants failed to perform their duties to investigate allegations made by Frances Curry against an attorney who represented her in another action. The plaintiffs al- lege: "Defendants have continued to refuse to prosecute grievances filed with Board on or about January 8, 1980." They also allege "Defendants filed "Cease and Decist Orders" against the plaintiff, illegally."Complaint filed July 8, 1981, . The defendants move to dismiss, for attorney's fees, and for an injunction against the plaintiffs. 4 The complaint in this action is identical to the complaint filed in an earlier case, Curry V. State Bar Of Wisconsin, 80-C-192 (E. D. Ms., filed June 2, 1980). In fact, the complaint filed in this action bears the docketing number and filing stamps of that earlier case. In No,. 80=C-492, The plain- tiffs sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Judge Robert . Warren denied that request. "United States district courts have limit- ed subject matter jurisdiction. A plaintiff must demostrate that such jurisdiction exe ists. Although the plaintiff relies upor di- versity of citizenship as a jurisdictional foundation, quite clearly the parties are not of diverse citizenship and, therefore, jurisdiction does not exist on that basis. plaintiff also cites, however, 28 U.S.C.1343 (3) which gives the court jurisdiction if the complaint states a cause of action for a violation of constitutional rights under 42- U. 8. C. 1983. The proposed complaint does not state a cause of action over which this et. would have jurisdiction and, therefore, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. In the instant case, the petitioner ap- pears to attack the Board's decision that his complaint is groundless, Such a determination however, is not sub ject to review by this court. The federal Courts have no authority to intervene in the disciplining of attorneys by the State Licensing authority. In addition, the col- lateral consequences of the Board's de- cision in this case does not crez‘te a sit- uation in which the petitioner's constitut ional rights are impinged. The refusal of an attorney to take her case does not infringe on eny constitute ional richts of vetitioncer. There is no constitutional right to an attorncy in civil cases end each attorney has the dis- erection to accept or regect any case of f- ered to hin. Finally, the petitioner has presented to this court no evidonce that the Board is doing anything to prevent petitioner fron obteining counsel. Therefore, the court finds that the petitioner's proposed con- plain is frivolous", Ide, slip Opeat 2=3 (filed June 27, 1980); “ccord. Jesse Sing- Teton J. State Bar Of “lise, Ho. 80-C-482 J. 9. As. filed July 9, 1980); tiller v. State Bar of “ise, No. 80—Ca521 (M.D. 18. 6 Filed Jume 20, 1980); Garlin Singleton, V. State Bar of Ms., No. 80=C-483(E.D. Wise, June 6, 1980). In an instant order dated July 25, 1980, judge Warren denied plain- tiffs leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Frances Curry, V. State Bar, No. 80-C-492 Supra. The plaintiffs then appealed. The court of appeals for this Cir. acting pur- suant to Rule 2, Federal Rules of Appellate procedure, reviewed the action on the me- rits and concluded that it was frivolous. Id., No. 80-2035 (7th Cir. filed February 6, 1981), Clarified, No. 80-2055 filed March 20, 1980). The plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by this courte Ide, U.S. No. 80-6577, 49, U. 8. L. J. 391 (filed June 155 1981). I find nothing in this repetive complaint that sets out any violation of a constitut» ional right The motion to dismiss will be granted. See Jesse Singleton V. State Bar Of Ms., No. 81-C-1981 (B. D. Wise, filed September 30, 1981); Garlin Singleton V. State Bar Of Wise, No. 81-C-712( E. D. Vise 9 7 (continued from page 6) Filed September 20, 1981); Miller V. State Bar of Wises No. 80-C-1091 (E. D. Wis. June 6, 1980). State Bar Of Wise, No. 80-C-1091 (Z. D. Filed September 25, 1981); Burns v. State Bar Of Wise, No. 80-C-780 (E. D. Wis. filed September 22, 1981). The defendants also move for an award of costs and attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. Under such a section a defen- dant may recover attorney's fees upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foun- dation, even though not brought in subjec- tive bad faith." Christianburg Garment Co., Vs. Equal . ployment Opportunity Comm'n 434, U.S. 412, 421 (1978). I am mindful of the concerns expressed by Judge Terence Evans in Burns Ve State Bar, Supra, But I am satisfied that this case is approiate for an award of attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs at bar have done nothing more than refile an action which they pur- sued with no success through every level of the federal courts. 8 The Christanburg language is an accurate description of this lawsuit, Accordingly, I will award costs to the defendant's and the award costs shall include attorneys fees in the amount of $250. The defendant also move for an injunction pursuant to 28 U. 8. C. 1651, to prevent the plaintiffs from once again pursuing this action. I am not persuaded that the defendants have met the burden to justify this ex- treme form of relief. There has not yet been a large number of cases brought sole- ly for vexatious purposes appropriate here See Garlin Singleton V. State Bar, No. 81-C-712, and the cases cited therein. Accordingly, the motion for injunctive re- lief will be denied. Therefore, IT IS OR- dered that the defendants’ motion to dis- miss and for injunctive relief be and hereby is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the defen- dants' motion be and hereby is granted in 9 (continued from page 8) insofar it seeks to dismiss and seek an award of costs and attorney's fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defen- dants be and hereby are awarded costs, and the award of costs, and the award of costs shall include attorney's fees in the amount of $250. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defen- dants' motion be and hereby is denied in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and is hereby is dismissed. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 30 day of September, 1981. 10 JUDGMENT ON DECISION BY THE COURT. UNITEL STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE FRANCES R. CURRY, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION PLAINTIFFS, FILE NO. 81-C- VS. 802 STATE BAR OF WISe, et Aley JUDGMENT DEFENDANTS. This action came on for consideration be- fore the Court, Hone Myron Le Gordon, U.S. District Judge, presiding, and the issues having been duly and a decision having been duly rendered, It is ordered and adjudged that defendants’ motion be and hereby is granted insofar as it seeks to dismiss this action and seek an award of costs and attorney's fees. It is ALSO ORDERED that the defendants be and hereby are awarded costs, such costs to include an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $250. It IS Further ORDERED that this action be and hereby is dismissed. 11 (continued from page 10) Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin ,This 2nd day of October, 1981. e 0 u b Chee 12 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 BEFORE Garlin Singleton, Jr., Reverand Jesse Lee Singleton, Jr., FRANCIS R. CURRY and GEORGE TAYLOR, plaintiffs-Appellants, Appeals Nos. 81-2723, 81<-272k, from the U. and 81-2748 VS. S. Dist. Court For the STATE BAR OF MS., et al., Eastern Dist. Defendants-Appellees. Of Wise, Nos. 81-C-712, 8i- C-781 and 8l- C-802 Judge Myron L.Cord- On. ER This matter comes before the court for its consideration upon the "MOTION TO DIS- MISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE" filed herein on December 18, 1981, 3 tor the de- fendants-appellees. On consideration thereo,, IT IS ORDERED that these appeals are consolidated for the purposes of brief ing and disposition. It IS FURTHER ORDERED that said motion is hereby GRANTED to the extent that the brief filed in No. 81-2748 is stricken as vile and abusive. The court notes that briefs in Nos. 81-2723 and 8l- 2724 have not been filed. The following briefing schedule shall be adopted: leThe brief of plaintiffs-appellants shall be due on or before January 20, 1982. Since these appeals have been consolidat- ed, only fifteen copies need be filed. Plaintiffs-appellants, who are not now pro- ceeding in forma pauperis, are admonishe? to submit briefs in conformity with Fed. R. App. P. 32 and the Circuit Rules. The court directs plaintiffs to consider addressing these issues on appeal: APPEAL Nos. 81-2723, 81-272, and 81-2748 (a) Whether the district court correctly determined that their complaint failed to state a violation of constitutional law; (continued from page ). and (b) whether the district court correct- ly awarded attorneys' fee against plain tiffs. Z. The brief of defendants-appellees shall be due on or before February 22, 1982. 3. The reply brief of the plaintiffs-ap- pelants, if any, shall be due on or before March 8, 1982. Plaintiffs are expressly admonished to pre sent in their brief only legal arguments, and factual materials presented to the dist rict court. Scandlous material will be stricken. Plaintiffs are invited to con- sider the sanctions for frivolous and vex- atious conduct specified in Fed. R. App. P. 38. United States Court 82 Appeals For The Seventh Circuit 219 8. Dearborn St. Chicago, Illinois 60604 Thomas F. Strubbe, clerk 312-435-3850. Dear Madam or Sir: The enclosed document is being returned to your office for the following reason(s) Document received after due date. xxxx Document lacks a certificate of service. Document received is illegible. Document lacks required affidavit. xxxx insufficient number of copies of do- cument tendered. Record withdrarm from clerk's office not re turned. . C. R. 11 Additional authority is argument tative. Brief, petition for rehearing or answer to petition for rehearing lacks a table of contents. Brief, petition for rehear- ing or answer to petition for rehearing exceeds page limitation. Appellant's brief lacks required short appendix. Motion to affirm w/o oral argument and 16 (continued from page 15) proposed order not filed simultaneously with appellee's brief. Special leave of court is required to file document. Motion was denyed. If the due date of the returned document has passed at the time you resubmit the corrected document, a motion for leave to file the document instanter is required. Inquiries regarding Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' filing procedures may be made to the clerk's office: Commercial No. =312=435-5850 F. Te Se Mo. = 387-5850 Thank You, Charles R. Nea, Deputy Clerk * Note, 15 copies of a brief are required per FRAP and Circuit Rules, and per Courts order of 23 December, 1981. Please return this letter along with the corrected document. ( Another 15 BRIEFS ORDERED FILED BY FEDER AL JUDGE “JALTER J. CUMMINGS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ‘JAS IN FIRST 15 BRIEF). 17 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE APPELLEE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 15 — April 8. 1982. By the Court: No. 81-2748 FRANCIS R. CURRY and GEORGE Appeal TAYLOR, from the U.S. Plaintiffs-Appellants, District Ct, State Bar Of Asconsin, for the East- et Ales ern Dist. Of De fendants-Appellees. Wise No. 81-C 802. Myron L.Gord- on, judge. It appears to the Court that the appelant's brief was filed on=-__ January 18. 1962 , that the appellees brief was due to be file filed on or before_FEBRUARY 22, 1982, and that the appellee(s) has (have) failed to file a brief. No motion for an extension of time within which to file appellee(s) brief has been made pursuant to Circuit Rule 8(a)e It IS ORDERED that the appellee(s) re- 18 (continued from page 17) spond within fourteen days of the date of this order as to why this appeal should not be submitted to the Court for decision without the filing of a brief by the ap- pellee(s) and without oral argument by the appellee (s), pursuant to Circuit Rule 8 (c). (Respondent did not file BRIEFS ON TIME AS ORDERED BY THIS COURT, PETITIONERS ASKED FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT) 5 2.4 19 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 Before No. 81-2723 Appeal From U.S. GARLIN SINGLETON, R., Dist. Ct. For Plaintiffs-Appellants, The Eastern Dist. VS. Of Wisconsin. STATE BAR OF WIS., ET No. 81-C-712 AL., Defendents- Myron L. Gordon, Appellees. Judge (RRR RRERRRERRLRLLERE LEE E EERE TET ETE ET ETT No. 81-2724 Appeal from U.States REVERAND JESSE LEE Dist. Court For The SINGLETON, SR., ET Eastern Dist Of Wis., A. Plaintiffs-Appel- C. *l-C-781 lants, V. STATE BAR Myron L. Gordon, OF MS. et Ales Judge. Defendants-Appellees. No. 81-2748 APPEAL FROM THE U. 20 (continued from page) FRANCIS R. CURRY and S. Dist. Court GEORGE TAYLOR, for the Eastern Plaintiffs-Appellants, Dist. of Wise, VSe STATE BAR OF WIS, et al, No. 81-C-802 et ales Defendants-Appellees. Myron L. Gordon, Judge On December 23, 1981, this court directed the plaintiffs-appellants to consider ad dressing the following issues in their Briefs in these consolidated appeals: whether the district Court correctly deter- mined that their complaint failed to state a violation of constitutional law; and, whether the District Court correctly award- ed attorneys' fees against plaintiffs-ap- pelants. In their brief, plaintiffs have suggest- ed no legally acceptable basis for disturb- ing the trial court's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' cases for failure to state a constitutional violation. They also have failed to present any reasons why the dist. Court was wrong in awarding attorneys! fees of $250.00 to the state for its defense of this frivolous and repetitive lawsuit. 21 (continued from page 20) Nos. 81-2723, 81-272, and 81-2748 For these reasons, the District Court's Order dismissing the lawsuits and award- ing attorneys' fees are hereby AFFIRMED. The “Rules To Show Cause“ entered on March 16, 1982 in Appeal Nos. 81-2723 and 81-2724 and 81-2748 and April 8, 1982 in Appeal Nos. 81-2748 are hereby DISCHARGED, 22 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, ILL. 60604 August 16, 1982 By The Court: FRANCIS R. CURRY AND Appeal from GEORGE TAYLOR, PLAINTIFFS- U. 8. DIST. Appellants, Vs. Court For STATE BAR OF MS., ET AL., The Eastern DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, District Of Wise, No. 81-C-802 Myron L. Gordon, Judge SHHASHHHSKAHHHHHHSHHHHHH SASH HHEHHRHEHEHE HEE EE EES This matter comes before the court for its consideration upon "Opposition TO BILL OF COSTS" FILED HEREIN on June 24, 1982 by pro se plaintiff-appellant Francis R. Curry. Defendant did not apply for costs in this appeal, nor were costs awarded. The Clerk shall file said Opposition without action. 23 918-A W. Nash Street April 2, 1982, Apte Ae Milwaukee, Wis. 55206 Mr. Thomas F. Strubbe, Clerk, U. S. Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit, 219 S. Dearborn Ste, Chicago, Ill. 60604 Dear Mr. Strubbe: FRANCES R. CURRY AND GEORGE TAYLOR VS. State Bar Of Hs., ET AL, CASE NO.81-2748. The Honorable Walter J. Cummings, Cir., Judge issued and order on December 23, 1981 in that order, the defendants were to file REPLY BRIEFS NO LATER THAN ABOUT FEBRUARY 20, 1982. AS OF THIS DATE NO BRIEF HAS BEEN FILED BY DEFENDANTS. WE ARE ASKING JUDGMENT, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS EXPIRED TOR DEFENDANTS TO HONOR THE COURTS _ ORDER OF DECEMBER 23, 1981. please notice my new address. ATTN: LEROY L. DALTON, FRANCES R. CURRY. ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPT. OF JUSTICE, ROOM 114 EAST, MADISON, WIS. 53702. THREE COPIES SENT TO COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS. . 2k THE STATE OF ‘YISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE April 13, 1982 LeRoy L. Dalton Bronson LaFol- Asst. Attorney Gene, Lette, Wis. Attye, (608) 266-3863 Gen., F. Joseph 123 J. Jashington Ave., Sensenbrenner, Mailing Address: Deputy Atty. Gene, P. O. Box 7857, Madison, ‘lise 53707-7857 Mr. Thomas F. Strubbe, Clerk, United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit Chicago, Ill. 60604 22 u St Of * a e Case No. Dear Mr. Strubbe: The court's rule to show cause dated April 8, 1982, was received upon my return from va- cation this date. In examining the file I find that our motion to dismiss and motion to strike was filed with the court on December 16, 1981, and a memorandum in support of the motions was filed on that same date. I am enclosing copies of the 25 ‘continued from page 21,) motion, memorandum and cover letter here- with. Je consider the issues to be ade- quately covered in the above memorandum and do not desire permission to file any further brief in this matter. Very Truly Yours, LeRoy Le Dalton, Asst. Attorney General LLD: bd enclosures cc: Hr. Francis R. Curry (RESPONDENTS DID NOT FILZ BRIEF AS ORDERED. BY APPEALS COURT ON DECEMBER 23, 1982). 26 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE CLERK WASHINGTON, D. C. 20543 June 15, 1981 Hr. Frances R. Curry 3026