Thomas v. Kadish, 83-2582

• Citation: 748 F.2d 276
• Decision Date: 10 December 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-2582,83-2582
• Parties: Carl S. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sanford KADISH, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Page 276

748 F.2d 276

Carl S. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sanford KADISH, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 83-2582.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 10, 1984.

Carl S. Thomas, pro se.

Alice Giessel, Henry P. Giessel, Houston, Tex., for Dr. George Parker.

Baker & Botts, Susan E. Roehm, Houston, Tex., for Kadish et al.

Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., Michael Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for other interested parties.

Ryan & Marshall, Steven Gonzalez, Houston, Tex., for Dr. Richard Coons, M.D.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before BROWN, TATE, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

TATE, Circuit Judge:

The plaintiff Thomas was denied admission to the Texas bar because of his alleged emotional and mental unfitness. Thomas filed this complaint in federal district court for injunctive and other relief, alleging deprivation under color of state law of various federal constitutional rights (principally by reason of racial and religious discrimination). Made defendants are various Texas parties involved in the Texas bar admission procedures, as well as various California parties, primarily academics and administrators of the law school in California from which Thomas received his law degree. Federal jurisdiction was based upon 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986.

The district court sustained motions to dismiss the suit. The court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted against the Texas defendants, arising out of the bar admission procedures, and that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the California defendants. We affirm.

I.

The principal issue posed by Thomas' appeal relates to the district court's holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this Sec. 1983 complaint, which stemmed from the denial of his admission to the Texas bar.

In District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), the Supreme Court held that a federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review a state court's allegedly unconstitutional denial of admission to the bar. The basic reason was that the state court action was characterized as judicial in nature, and final state court judgments may be reviewed only by the Supreme Court itself. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257. 460 U.S. at 483, 103 S.Ct. at 1315. ¹ In Feldman, the Court also indicated that a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review constitutional claims that "are inextricably intertwined with the state court's denial in a judicial proceeding of a particular plaintiff's application for admission to the state bar," id. at n. 16, and that a failure of a plaintiff to secure a final state-court judgment "may forfeit his right to obtain review of the state court decision in any federal court," id.

On the basis of Feldman, the present district court held it lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the claims against the Texas defendants.

The plaintiff Thomas persuasively argues, however, that Feldman does not apply to the present facts. They concern, he contends, administrative action by the Texas state Board of Law Examiners and that, to obtain federal review of this unconstitutional administrative action, he was not required to exhaust the interminable process of state review procedures. Patsy v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982). As will be seen from our discussion below of the present facts and of the state of Texas state bar admission procedures, this contention is substantial.

Nevertheless, we ultimately conclude that Thomas' contention must be rejected, in the light of the weight given by the Court to the values applicable to state bar admission procedures noted in Feldman, supra, that arise out of federal-state comity considerations and the "strength of the state interest in regulating the state bar," 460 U.S. at 483 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. at 1315 n. 16.

II.

Thomas, who is black, attended law school at the University of California at Berkeley ("Berkeley") from August, 1977 until May, 1980, receiving his law degree therefrom in 1981. While at Berkeley, Thomas became embroiled in disputes with his fellow students and with the faculty at that law school. Believing that he was a victim of racial and religious discrimination (Thomas was a fervent, if not fanatical, Christian activist), he filed suit in California state court against several law professors and the university regents.

When he applied in 1981 to take the Texas state bar examination, Thomas was required by the Texas Board of Law Examiners to obtain certification from the dean at Berkeley attesting to Thomas' completion of legal studies and to his good moral character and emotional fitness. The Berkeley law school did certify to Thomas' successful completion of his law degree graduation requirements. However, an associate dean replied to Thomas that the school was not in a position to furnish him the certificate of moral character or fitness, but that, upon request from the Texas state bar, it would furnish the student's record concerning the matter to that bar "for it to make its own inquiry and assessment."

When the Board of Bar Examiners subsequently wrote to the Berkeley associate dean in connection with its investigation of Thomas' "good moral character and emotional fitness," the Berkeley academic reported to the Texas Board about the law suit and also about an incident involving complaints from a number of Thomas' fellow students of his alleged harassment of them, including Thomas' denial of the charges and his request (later withdrawn by him) to confront his accusers in a quasi-official setting. The dean's letter stated that "the school made no independent investigation, [although] the complaints seemed quite serious to those who received them," and that "[i]n the end nothing of any official nature came of the matter so far as we are concerned."

Upon receipt of this information, the Texas Board informed Thomas that further investigation of his character and fitness was necessary before final approval could be given him. ² The Board subsequently informed Thomas that, reviewing the pleadings and correspondence, it felt that there was good cause to believe that a professional evaluation of his mental and emotional health was appropriate in order to assist the Board in assessing his "fitness," and that it would arrange for psychological testing and psychiatric evaluation at the Board's expense by clinical psychologists and a psychiatrist. ³

Thomas agreed to the examinations. These board-selected specialists examined Thomas and found that he had serious emotional problems. The Board scheduled a hearing, at which Thomas appeared pro se (waiving his right to have counsel present). Following the hearing, the Board denied Thomas' application for admission to the bar of Texas on its finding that he suffered then "from a paranoid psychotic condition," which was likely to prevent him from properly discharging his responsibilities as a member of the legal profession if he were licensed to practice law.

The Board took this action at its meeting on January 22, 1982, formally informing Thomas to that effect in writing. Although (as he had been informed) Thomas had the right under Texas bar admission procedures to appeal the Board's decision to a state district court (see III infra ), instead on March 25, 1982, he filed his present civil rights complaint against the Texas and California defendants, pertinently alleging as to the latter that they had conspired with the Texas defendants to deprive him unconstitutionally of his right to take the Texas state bar examination.

III.

As earlier noted, Thomas' principal contention is that the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction of his complaint of constitutional deprivation, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983, 1985, because the denial of his admission to the Texas court was the result of an administrative decision of the Texas state Board of Law Examiners, not of a final judicial decision by a state court that, under Feldman, see I supra, is not reviewable by a federal district court.

We must examine this contention in the light of the Texas state bar admission regulation and procedure. These are stated at Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. (Vernon Supp.1984) arts. 304, 305, 305a, 306 (hereinafter, "Art. ---"), and in the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas Adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas, effective August 1, 1981 (hereinafter, "Admission Rules"). ⁴ The procedural scheme therein set forth is as follows, insofar as relevant to the present issues:

The Supreme Court of Texas is authorized to make rules to govern eligibility to take the bar examination. Art. 306(a). It is also authorized to make rules to govern the administration of the Board of Law Examiners in its functions relating to the licensing of lawyers. Art. 306(b). The Board of Law Examiners was legislatively created and consists of nine lawyers appointed by the Supreme Court. Art. 304.

The Board, "acting under instructions of the Supreme Court ..., shall pass upon the eligibility of all candidates for examination for license to practice law within this State," and it "shall not recommend any person for license to practice law unless such person shall show the Board in the manner to be prescribed by the Supreme Court, that he is of such moral character and of such capacity and attainment that it would be proper for him to be licensed." Art. 305(a). In addition, the Board "may conduct an investigation of the moral character and fitness of an applicant for a license," art. 305a(a), but it may not recommend the denial of a license to an applicant on the ground of a deficiency in his "fitness" unless "the Board finds a clear and rational connection between the applicant's present mental and emotional condition and the likelihood that the applicant will not...