Stephen Eugster v. Washington State Bar Assoc. , 474 F. App'x 624 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUL 17 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    STEPHEN KERR EUGSTER,                            No. 10-35694
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00357-SMM
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    WASHINGTON STATE BAR
    ASSOCIATION; SALVADOR A.
    MUNGIA, President, Washinton State Bar
    Association Officers and Board of
    Governors; STEVEN G. TOOLE,
    President-elect, Washington State Bar
    Association Officers and Board of
    Governors; MARK A. JOHNSON,
    Immediate Past-president, Washington
    State Bar Association Officers and Board
    of Governors; G. GEOFFREY GIBBS,
    Washington State Bar Association Officers
    and Board of Governors; BRIAN L.
    COMSTOCK, Washington State Bar
    Association Officers and Board of
    Governors; LOREN SCOTT ETENGOFF,
    Washington State Bar Association Officers
    and Board Governors; ANTHONY
    DAVID GIPE, Washington State Bar
    Association Officers and Board
    Governors; LORI S. HASKELL,
    Washington State Bar Association Officers
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    and Board of Governors; DAVID S.
    HELLER, Washington State Bar
    Association Officers and Board of
    Governors; NANCY L. ISSERLIS,
    Washington State Bar Association Officers
    and Board of Governors; LELAND B.
    KERR, Washington State Bar Association
    Officers and Board of Governors; CARLA
    C. LEE, Washington State Bar Association
    Officers and Board of Governors; ROGER
    A. LEISHMAN, Washington State Bar
    Association Officers and Board of
    Governors; CATHERINE L. MOORE,
    Washington State Bar Association Officers
    and Board of Governors; PATRICK A.
    PALACE, Washington State Bar
    Association Officers and Board of
    Governors; MARC L. SILVERMAN;
    BRENDA WILLIAMS, Washington State
    Bar Association Officers and Board of
    Governors; WASHINGTON STATE
    SUPREME COURT; BARBARA A.
    MADSEN, Chief Justice, Washington
    State Supreme Court; CHARLES W.
    JOHNSON, Justice, Washington State
    Supreme Court; GERRY L.
    ALEXANDER; RICHARD B.
    SANDERS; TOM CHAMBERS, Justice,
    Washington State Supreme Court; SUSAN
    J. OWENS, Justice, Washington State
    Supreme Court; MARY E. FAIRHURST,
    Administrative Law Judge, Justice,
    Washington State Supreme Court; JAMES
    M. JOHNSON, Administrative Law Judge,
    Justice, Washington State Supreme Court;
    DEBRA L. STEPHENS, Justice,
    Washington State Supreme Court,
    2
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Washington
    Stephen M. McNamee, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted July 10, 2012
    Seattle, Washington
    Before: SCHROEDER, REINHARDT, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Eugster (Eugster) appeals from the district
    court’s dismissal of his lawsuit on standing and ripeness grounds. Because the
    parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we repeat
    only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We have
    jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    Eugster’s complaint does not allege that he will ever again be subject to
    disciplinary proceedings. Because Eugster has not presented any allegations about
    what he will do in the future that might subject him to the allegedly
    unconstitutional attorney disciplinary process again, we hold that Eugster lacks
    standing to pursue his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Partington
    v. Gedan, 
    961 F.2d 852
    , 862 (9th Cir. 1992). For the same reason, we hold that
    Eugster’s claims rest on contingent future events that may not occur. Thus,
    3
    Eugster’s claims are not ripe. See Bova v. City of Medford, 
    564 F.3d 1093
    , 1096
    (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
    In light of our conclusions, we decline to reach the remaining issues raised
    by the parties. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of
    Eugster’s complaint.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-35694

Citation Numbers: 474 F. App'x 624

Filed Date: 7/17/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023