Melek v. State Bar of California

24 F.3d 247 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jacques MELEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; Committee of Bar Examiners; Andrea Wachter; Jennifer Gee; Herb Rosenthal; Thomas Eres, Patricia Nichols; Gloria Zank; William Lanam; Melvin Cohn; Steve Kroff; Rhea Cohen, aka Rhea Monsky Smith; James V. Quillinan; Patricia Nichols, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-56211. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 7, 1994. * Decided April 18, 1994. 1 Before: BROWNING, PREGERSON and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 The defendants have not deprived plaintiff of a federally protected right to practice law in California. The Supreme Court of California has the sole authority to decide whether to admit an applicant to practice law in that state. The Committee of Bar Examiners is merely empowered to make a recommendation to the Supreme Court: 4 [t]he Committee's decision not to certify a candidate is itself simply of no legal…