In Re: Alexander ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    
    
    
                                             No. 99-60827
                                           Summary Calendar
    
    
    
                   IN RE:          DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
                                   AGAINST FIRNIST J ALEXANDER, JR.
                                   P.O. BOX 1326
                                   JACKSON, MS 39215-1326
                      ___________________________________________
                          Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the Northern District of Mississippi
                                   USDC No. 3:98-MC-12-B
                      ___________________________________________
                                         May 8, 2000
    Before POLITZ, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    
    PER CURIAM:*
           Firnist J. Alexander appeals from his disbarment by the federal court
    following his disbarment by the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Alexander contends
    
    that the district court deprived him of due process by denying his request for a
    
    hearing and by relying solely on the state-court disbarment, thus failing to make an
    independent determination of his fitness to practice law. He contends that he was
    
    deprived of due process in the state disbarment proceeding by the use of default-
    
    judgment procedures; by the Mississippi Bar’s failure to introduce any evidence of
    
    misconduct in the state proceedings; and by the consideration as aggravating factors
    
            *
             Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    in the state proceedings disciplinary actions that occurred after the complaints were
    filed that resulted in the state proceedings. Alexander argues that the consideration
    
    of the disciplinary actions that occurred after the complaints were filed also
    
    constituted a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
             First, Alexander has not shown that a hearing was necessary to assist the
    
    district court; the Due Process Clause was not offended because the district court
    
    did not hold a hearing.2 Second, the district court implicitly rejected the contentions
    
    in Alexander’s response to the show-cause order when it disbarred Alexander; the
    district court therefore did not rely solely on the state disbarment without further
    consideration. Third, the use of Mississippi’s default procedures in Alexander’s
    state-court case did not violate the Due Process Clause. Alexander had ample
    
    notice and an opportunity to be heard.3 Fourth, Alexander’s disciplinary history was
    not part of the charges against him; the charges were based on Alexander’s
    
    representation of a particular client in a particular action. There was no due process
    violation because the complaint did not mention a disciplinary action that occurred
    after the complaint was filed.4 Fifth, Alexander makes no legitimate Ex Post Facto
    
    Clause contention.5
    
             AFFIRMED.
    
    
             2
                 Travelers Ins. Co. v. St. Jude Hospital of Kenner, La., Inc., 
    38 F.3d 1414
     (5th Cir.
    1994).
             3
              Boddie v. Connecticut, 
    401 U.S. 371
     (1971).
             4
              In re Ruffalo, 
    390 U.S. 544
     (1968).
             5
              Collins v. Youngblood, 
    497 U.S. 37
     (1990).
    
                                                     2