Thomas

Thomas v. Bergstedt

Good Law
15 F. App'x 413
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 30, 2001No. 99-35814; D.C. No. CV-99-00489-JCCCalifornia882 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In this appeal, we must determine whether the district court properly dismissed Thomas’s claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (2000); Disk of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Upon recommendation of the Washington State Board of Continuing Legal Education, the Washington Supreme Court formally suspended Steven Thomas from the practice of law for not completing his continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements. Thomas filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Scott Bergstedt, M. Janice Michels, and Richard Guy (collectively “the defendants”). Bergstedt is the Chairman of the Washington Board of Continuing Legal Education, Michels is the Executive Director of the Washington State Bar, and Guy was the Chief Justice of the Washington Supreme Court. 1 Purportedly predicating jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , Thomas alleged that the defendants violated his due process…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.