723 Fed.Appx. 519 (9th Cir. 2018), 17-55765, Scheer v. Pasternak

Docket Nº:17-55765
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 519

723 Fed.Appx. 519 (9th Cir. 2018)

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.

No. 17-55765

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 22, 2018

Submitted May 15, 2018 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1.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.

MEMORANDUM[**]

Attorney Marilyn S. Scheer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims stemming from her attorney

Page 520

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 Scheer’s 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 California’s 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) ).

The district...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP