Canatella v. State of California

• Citation: 304 F.3d 843
• Decision Date: 12 June 2002
• Docket Number: No. 00-16782.,00-16782.
• Parties: Richard A. CANATELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; President of the State Bar Association; the Judges of the State Bar Court; the Office of the Chief Counsel of the State Bar of California, Trial Counsel, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

304 F.3d 843

Richard A. CANATELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; President of the State Bar Association; the Judges of the State Bar Court; the Office of the Chief Counsel of the State Bar of California, Trial Counsel, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-16782.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted December 5, 2001.

Filed June 12, 2002.

Amended September 9, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Richard A. Canatella (argued), Cotter & Del Carlo, San Francisco, CA, plaintiff-appellant, Pro Se.

Jay M. Goldman (argued), Dina E. Goldman (on the brief), Office of the General Counsel, The State Bar of California, and Tom Blake, Office of the Attorney General of the State of California, San Francisco, CA, for the defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-01105-MJJ.

Before HUG, D.W. NELSON and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The Opinion filed on June 12, 2002, and appearing at slip op. 8487 is amended as follows:

At slip op. page 8499 , delete the first full paragraph (beginning "In reciting the factual background concerning the California State Bar disciplinary system....") through the end of section B at slip op. page 8501 (last sentence reads "Because this was the only action that had taken place at the time Canatella filed his federal complaint...."), and substitute the following in its place:

The major issue in Hirsh, in determining whether Younger abstention applied, was whether the plaintiffs faced on-going disciplinary proceedings when their suit was brought in federal court. The opinion noted that under California law attorney disciplinary matters were handled by the State Bar Court and "that throughout the process the State Supreme Court retains inherent jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters." Hirsh, 67 F.3d at 711-12. Hirsh also stated "Disciplinary proceedings are commenced by serving the accused with a Notice to Show Cause." Id. at 711. While the opinion does not cite a particular rule of court, it is apparent that the statement is based on the Transitional rules of the State Bar of California that governed the proceedings conducted by the State Bar Court, set forth in California Rules of Court, Revised Edition, page 1081, et seq. See Preamble, page 1085. Rule 550 provides, "Except as provided in Rule 551, a formal proceeding shall be commenced by issuance of a notice to show cause directed to the member." Id. at 1108. (Rule 551 did not pertain.) These were the rules applicable to the Hirsh plaintiffs.

The Rules were amended January 1, 1995, and were designated "Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California." See California Rules of Court, 2002 Edition, page 769. These were the rules in effect at the times applicable to this case and govern the proceedings conducted by the State Bar through the State Bar Court. Id. at 773. Rule 50 of those Rules states: "The State Bar Court Proceeding is commenced by the filing of an initial pleading." Id. at 783. Rule 101(a) provides: "Unless otherwise specified in the rules governing a particular type of proceeding, a notice of disciplinary charges is the initial pleading in a disciplinary proceeding." Id. at 786. The "notice of disciplinary charges" in the current rules replaces the "notice to show cause" for the commencement of disciplinary proceedings that was applicable in Hirsh. A preliminary investigation before issuing a notice of disciplinary charges or a mere complaint to the bar does not commence a disciplinary action, nor would a mere report of sanctions by Canatella.9/ Thus, there was no on-going disciplinary proceeding to which Younger abstention would apply.10/

Replace all occurrences of the term "magistrate" with "magistrate judge."

. . . . .

9/ The district court relied on Jacobs v. State Bar of California, 20 Cal.3d 191, 141 Cal.Rptr. 812, 570 P.2d 1230 (1977), to conclude that Canatella's self-reporting of the sanctions order initiated a disciplinary proceeding. Jacobs was decided before the enactment of applicable California Court Rules governing disciplinary proceedings and is thus not applicable to this case.

10/ Given the absence of an ongoing proceeding, an "actual interference" inquiry under Green is no longer necessary.

With these amendments, the panel unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Hug and Nelson recommended denying the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Hawkins voted to deny the en banc petition.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

OPINION

MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge.

California attorney Richard A. Canatella ("Canatella") filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against the California State Bar and others, raising First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges to four California State Bar statutes and one rule of professional conduct. The district court dismissed the claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and on the basis of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), questioning further whether Canatella had standing and whether his claims were ripe for review. We must decide whether Rooker-Feldman applies to Canatella's claims in light of changed circumstances, and whether Canatella was involved in an ongoing proceeding under Younger. Because we conclude the answer to both questions is no, we must also decide whether Canatella's claims satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of Article III.

I. BACKGROUND

Canatella has practiced law in California since 1972. He is licensed to practice in California and the District of Columbia, and is a member of the bars of the Northern and Central districts of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Prior to 1989, Canatella had no record of discipline before any court or bar. Between 1989 and 1996, federal and state courts imposed monetary sanctions against Canatella on twenty-six occasions, in an amount totaling approximately $100,000.¹ Canatella was sanctioned for such reasons as vexatious litigation, filing of frivolous actions and appeals, and the use of delay tactics. Twenty-five of the twenty-six sanctions arose in the context of two sets of proceedings.² In the first, Canatella filed a series of civil actions on behalf of a babysitter and her parents, after appellate reversal of the babysitter's conviction for second degree murder and child abuse. In the second, Canatella represented two civil defendants in a series of collection actions. All of the sanctions levied against Canatella concern his activities as an advocate of his clients' interests in judicial proceedings.

In 1992, the State Bar of California ("State Bar") initiated a disciplinary investigation into the multiple sanctions orders. In response, Canatella filed a § 1983 action seeking to enjoin the State Bar from taking disciplinary action against him, and to declare facially unconstitutional several provisions of the California Business and Professions Code and one provision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.³ While the sanctions orders themselves generally arose for violations of rules of court, such as Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 11(b), or Fed.R.App.Proc. 38, Canatella challenged the state bar statutes and professional rule under which he could ultimately be subject to discipline or disbarment by the State Bar. The district court abstained from exercising jurisdiction under Younger, and Canatella appealed to this court.

Pending appeal, the State Bar filed formal charges against Canatella. Canatella agreed to a stipulated settlement requiring 30 days actual suspension from legal practice, and an eighteen-month stayed suspension subject to reinstatement upon any finding of rule violations during an eighteen-month probationary period. The California Supreme Court approved the stipulated discipline on August 18, 1999, in a final disciplinary order. In light of the settlement, this court dismissed Canatella's appeal as moot on November 17, 1999. See Canatella v. State Bar of California, 203 F.3d 830 (9th Cir.1999). The district court subsequently denied without prejudice Canatella's motions for vacatur of the abstention order, and for leave to amend his complaint.

In March of 2000, Canatella filed a second § 1983 suit in district court, again seeking an injunction prohibiting the State Bar from taking further disciplinary action against him under the challenged provisions, and a declaration that the provisions are unconstitutional. Canatella alleged that facially and as applied, the challenged provisions are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Canatella also alleged that the provisions deprive him of his "judicial proceedings" privilege under color of state law. In raising these claims, Canatella alleged a strong likelihood of further State Bar disciplinary charges for a sanction entered against him by a magistrate judge on January 14, 2000, in a separate action.⁴

The district court dismissed Canatella's complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and on Younger abstention grounds, further questioning whether Canatella had standing and whether his claims were ripe for review. Canatella now appeals.

Two events of significance have occurred after Canatella filed the immediate appeal. First, this court vacated the magistrate judge's sanction order on January 25, 2001, with the mandate issuing on February 20, 2001. See Chan v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 2 Fed.Appx. 861, 867 (9th Cir.2001). Second, on March 18, 2001, Canatella completed his probationary sentence under the stipulated settlement and final order issued by ...