Levi v. State Bar of California , 391 F. App'x 633 ( 2010 )

FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
SIMON S. LEVI, No. 08-15242
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-07-04378-MHP
Northern District of California,
v. San Francisco
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
ORDER
Defendants,
and
RONALD M. GEORGE, Administrative
Law Judge, Chief Justice; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Simon Levi's motion to 'correct error found in memorandum issued by this
Court on June 21, 2010' is granted, and we striµe references in the memorandum
disposition to the State Bar of California as an appellee.
We instruct the Clerµ to withdraw the memorandum disposition filed on
June 21, 2010, and to file the revised memorandum disposition submitted for filing
with this order.
No further filings will be accepted in this closed case.
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIMON LEVI, No. 08-15242
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-07-04378-MHP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants,
and
RONALD M. GEORGE, Administrative
Law Judge, Chief Justice; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Simon Levi appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his
action against the Justices of the California Supreme Court as barred by the
Rooµer-Feldman doctrine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. y 1291. We
review de novo, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm
in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly concluded that the Rooµer-Feldman doctrine
barred the action because it is a forbidden de facto appeal of the California
Supreme Court's decision denying Levi's application for admission to the bar, and
the remaining claims are inextricably intertwined with the forbidden appeal. See
id. at 1158; Craig v. State Bar of Cal., 141 F.3d 1353, 1354 (9th Cir. 1998)
(explaining that '[u]nder California law, only the state supreme court . . . has the
authority to grant or deny admission to the bar[,]' and holding that '[b]ecause
[plaintiff sought] review of the California Supreme Court's decision to deny his
individual application, the district court lacµed subject matter jurisdiction'
pursuant to the Rooµer-Feldman doctrine).
We do not consider issues raised in the opening brief for which Levi
developed no argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
2 08-15242
1992) (issues raised in pro se litigant's brief but not supported by argument are
deemed waived).
Dismissals under the Rooµer-Feldman doctrine are dismissals for lacµ of
subject matter jurisdiction, Kougasian v. TMSL, 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.
2004), and thus, should be dismissed without prejudice, Freeman v. Oaµland
Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999) (order). Accordingly, we
vacate in part the judgment, and remand for the limited purpose of dismissing the
action without prejudice.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED.
3 08-15242