723 Fed.Appx. 519 (9th Cir. 2018), 17-55765, Scheer v. Pasternak
|Citation:||723 Fed.Appx. 519|
|Party Name:||Marilyn S. SCHEER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David J. PASTERNAK, in his official capacity as President of the Board of Trustee of State Bar of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Marilyn S. Scheer, Pro Se Suzanne Grandt, State Bar of California, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees David J. Pasternak, Catherine D. Purcell, Donald F. Miles Kevin Michael McCormick, Attorney, Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham, Ventura, CA, for Defendant-Ap...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||May 22, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted May 15, 2018 [*]
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03813-R-JPR
Marilyn S. Scheer, Pro Se
Suzanne Grandt, State Bar of California, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees David J. Pasternak, Catherine D. Purcell, Donald F. Miles
Kevin Michael McCormick, Attorney, Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham, Ventura, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Attorney Marilyn S. Scheer appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims stemming from her attorney
disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. San Francisco City & County, 364 F.3d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2004) (issue preclusion); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Scheers constitutional challenge to Cal. Civil Code § 2944.7 as barred by issue preclusion because the claim was predicated on issues that were resolved against Scheer in a prior state court action. See White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that Californias issue preclusion doctrine "precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings" and setting forth six criteria to determine whether an issue is precluded (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ).
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP