Malmin v. Board of Com'rs of Idaho State Bar

30 F.3d 139 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Constance MALMIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE IDAHO STATE BAR; John J. McMahon; Dean Wollenwaber; R. Ronald Kerl; Jean R. Uranga; Michael J. Oths; Kathryn A. Stricklen; Johnny L. King; Linnae Costello; Richard C. Engler; Glenn Coughlan; Hearing Review Committee, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-35336. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 11, 1994. * Decided Aug. 2, 1994. Before: GOODWIN, D.W. NELSON, HALL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 After Constance Malmin, an Idaho Attorney, received a private letter of reprimand from the Idaho State Bar Association, she initiated this action pro se in federal district court. She claimed that the thirteen named defendants, who included members of the Bar Association involved in the decision to issue the letter, had imposed an impermissible restraint on trade, in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and had deprived her of…