Stephen Eugster v. Washington State Bar Associati , 684 F. App'x 618 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    STEPHEN KERR EUGSTER,                           No. 15-35743
    Plaintiff-Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00375-JLR
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WASHINGTON STATE BAR
    ASSOCIATION, a Washington association;
    et al.
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 8, 2017**
    Before:       LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Stephen Kerr Eugster, an attorney and member of the Washington State Bar
    Association (“WSBA”), appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging freedom of speech and association claims under
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 12(b)(6), Lacey v. Maricopa County, 
    693 F.3d 896
    , 911 (9th Cir. 2012)
    (en banc), and we affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Eugster’s claims relating to his
    compulsory membership in the WSBA because an attorney’s mandatory
    membership with a state bar association is constitutional. See Keller v. State Bar
    of Cal., 
    496 U.S. 1
    , 13 (1990) (“[T]he compelled association and integrated bar are
    justified by the State’s interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the
    quality of legal services.”); Lathrop v. Donohue, 
    367 U.S. 820
    , 843 (1961)
    (Brennan, J., plurality opinion) (state bar association may constitutionally require
    compulsory membership and payment of dues without impinging on protected
    rights of association). Contrary to Eugster’s contentions, this court cannot overrule
    binding authority because “[a] decision of the Supreme Court will control that
    corner of the law unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules or modifies
    it.” Hart v. Massanari, 
    266 F.3d 1155
    , 1171 (9th Cir. 2001).
    The district court properly dismissed Eugster’s claim that the WSBA
    improperly funds certain activities because Eugster failed to allege facts sufficient
    to show an improper use of his mandatory annual WSBA bar dues. See 
    Keller, 496 U.S. at 14
    (state bar may spend its members’ dues “for the purpose of regulating
    2                                    15-35743
    the legal profession or improving the quality of the legal service available to the
    people of the State” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                    15-35743
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-35743

Citation Numbers: 684 F. App'x 618

Filed Date: 3/21/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023