# Opposition Brief — Kerpelman v. Land > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385018_0239%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1985 - **Citation:** 474 U.S. 820 ## Text ~ Office are a JUN 24 °° No, 84-1822 NDER L. STEVAS CLERK In THE Supreme Court of the United States OctToBerR TERM, 1984 LEONARD J. KERPELMAN, Petitioner, Vv. MARVIN LAND, er At., Respondents. On PETITION FOR Writ OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES Court oF APPEALS FOR THE FourtTH CIRCUIT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI STEPHEN H. Sacus, Attorney General of Maryland, *Diana G. Morz, Perer E. Kertu, Assistant Attorneys General, The Munsey Bldg.. 2nd Floor, Seven North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, (301) 576-6300, Attorneys for Respondents. “Counsel of Record = BEST AVAILABLE COPY COUNTERSTATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Did the District Court and Circuit Court properly hold that Respondents are entitled to judicial and quasi-judicial immunity from Petitioner's claim for damages, and that Petitioner failed to state a valid claim for injunctive relief, thereby warranting dismis- sal of Petitioner's 42 U.S.C. §1983 action? TABLE OF CONTENTS COUNTERSTATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW......--2eeeel TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......cecceeeeelil COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE........-1l REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT.......++4 - The Trial and Appellate Courts Fully Considered and Correctly Decided the Question Presented..........4 a. The Question Presented Is Particularly Fact-Specific and Not Important Enough to Warrant Review...........8 3% The Second and Third Questions Raised in the Petition Are Not Properly Before the Court...cccccceesd COMPTON: 6 és 600 6 06400 606000664 1 4 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Butz v. Economou, Cae Wes Bre CASIO crcvecsccccceess 5 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 0.8. 95 (19B3).cccccccscccces 6 Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n., 457 U.S. Dae Cemeelseceecces ee 6 Pulliam v. Allen, U.S. P oe. ae ee! ere 7 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) ..ccccccccccee 5 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) see e eee eee oeeeer eee eee sos Statutory Provisions 42 U.S.C. §$19SS. cccccccccccccs .-passim Rules Maryland Rules BVS and BV6.......... & & | No. 84-1822 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1984 LEONARD J. KERPELMAN Petitioner Vv. MARVIN LAND, et al. Respondents On Fetition for Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioner Leonard J. Kerpelman (herein- after "Kerpelman"), an attorney currently serving a disciplinary suspension from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil action against five “groups” of defendants in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on October 14, 1983. In his complaint, Kerpelman contended that defendants conspired to file and pursue "a false and entirely frivolous charge of professional misconduct" against him. Prior to Kerpelman's suit, the misconduct charge at issue had been unanimously dismissed by an Inquiry Panel of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland at a preliminary stage without a hearing, and no sanction was sought Or imposed. See Maryland Rules BVS and BV6, reproduced in Pet. App. at 50-55, outlining procedures before the Attorney Grievance Commission. Nevertheless, in his §1983 complaint Kerpelman demanded damages and an injunction against possible future action which the Attorney Grievance Commission might take against him. Defendant Marvin Land, a former Circuit . Court Judge for Baltimore County, Maryland and a Respondent before this Court, moved to dismiss Kerpelman's §1983 complaint on the basis of judicial immunity. The other Re- spondents before this Court - the present Bar Counsel of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, former Assistant Bar Counsel, and present or former members and employees of the Attorney Grievance Commission - moved to dismiss Kerpelman's §1983 complaint for a variety of reasons, including quasi-judicial immunity. In a lengthy Memorandum opinion filed on April 17, 1984, the Honorable Joseph H. Young of the District Court dismissed Kerpelman's Claims for damages on grounds of judicial and quéesi-judicial immunity. The District Court also dismissed Kerpelman's claim for injunc- tive relief for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Pet. App. at A8-A30. In an unpublished Opinion dated January 24, 1985, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed on the basis of the District Court's opinion, noting addi- tionally that Kerpelman's conclusory allega- tions of a conspiracy were insufficient to maintain his claim. Pet. App. Al1-A3. By Order dated February 20, 1985, the Court of Appeals denied Kerpelman's petition for rehearing en banc. Pet. App. A4-AS. REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT 1. The Trial and Appellate Courts Fully Considered and Correctly Decided the Question Presented. After thorough analysis, the District Court correctly determined that Respondent Land's initiation of the grievance complaint against Kerpelman was a judicial act subject to judicial immunity from claims for dama- ges. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). The District Court also properly found that the remaining Respondents before this Court, all of whom are present or former members or employees of the Attorney Grie- vance Commission of Maryland, are entitled to quasi-judicial absolute immunity from claims for damages as the arm of the judiciary charged with regulating attorney conduct in Maryland. Pet. App. Al17-A25. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978). The District Court's decision on this point was in part based upon several Court of Appeals decisions granting absolute immunity to attorney dis- Ciplinary commissions and their agents who investigate and prosecute complaints of mis- conduct of attorneys. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit concurred with the District Court's conclusion and reasoning. The trial and appellate courts also pro- perly, held that Kerpelman's complaint failed to state a valid claim for injunctive relief, because his conclusory allegations’ were insufficient. Pet. App. A3, Al10O. Indeed, dismissal of Kerpelman's injunction claim was entirely proper, since he cannot show a real and immediate threat of future injury by Respondents, a necessary prerequisite to stating a claim for injunctive relief. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1668 at n. 8 (1983). The lower courts also correctly noted that Kerpelman's prayer for injunctive relief with regard to possible future investigations of him by the Attorney Grievance Commission wo.ld interfere with the principles of fede- ral-state comity set forth in Younger vy. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n., 457 U.S. 423 (1982). Accordingly, Kerpelman's claim for injunctive relief was properly dismissed. In his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, as he did in briefing before the Fourth Cir- cuit, Kerpelman suggests that dismissal of his request for injunctive relief somehow contradicts the decision in Pulliam vy. Allen, U.S. , 104 §.Ct. 1970 (1984). In Pulliam, this Court held that the doctrine of judicial immunity does not bar a §1983 action seeking injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. Had the District Court in this case dismissed Kerpelman's request for injunctive relief on immunity grounds, Pulliam might compel ae remand. However, this did not occur. Ratner, Kerpelman's claim for injunc- tion and attorneys' fees was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, Pulliam has no application to this case, and Kerpelman's reliance upon Pulliam is wholly misplaced. 2. The Question Presented Is Particularly Fact-Specific and Not Important Enough to Warrant Review. Kerpelman's continual dispute with the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland is admittedly "unique." Pet. at 49. The Dis- trict Court's ruling, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is fact-specific and neces- Sarily rooted to the peculiar allegations set forth by Kerpelman in his complaint. More- over, Kerpelman's unusual complaint does not present a substantial federal question worthy of this Court's review, because the charge of misconduct at issue was dismissed by an Inquiry Panel of the Attorney Grievance Com- mission prior to Kerpelman's lawsuit and without a hearing or imposition of any pen- alty. Under these circumstances, this Court should decline further review of the matter. -8- | | 3. The Second and Third Questions Raised in ) the Petition Are Not Properly Before the Court. In his Petition, Kerpelman apparently seeks this Court's consideration of questions dealing with "repression of Free Speech" and alleged selective prosecution of certain groups by the Attorney Grievance Commis- sion. Pet. at IV. Because these questions were not presented to the lower courts for consideration, review of these issues by the Court would be inappropriate. CONCLUSION Respondents respectfully urge the Court to decline to review this case by the issu- ance of a Writ of Certiorari. The question raised by the Petition was correctly decided at both the trial and appellate levels, and is not an issue worthy of further considera- tion by this Court. The additional questions -9- iid presented by the Petitioner are not properly before the Court. Respectfully submitted, STEPHEN H. SACHS Attorney General of Maryland *DIANA G. MOTZ PETER E. KEITH Assistant Attorneys General The Munsey Bldg., 2nd Floor Seven N. Calvert Street Baltimore, Md. 21202 (301) 576-6300 Attorneys for Respondents *counsel of Record -10- --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385018_0239%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.