Jafri v. N.H. Supreme Court Comm. on Character & Fitness
| Decision Date | 18 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 1:22-cv-0039-JL,Opinion 2022 DNH 126 |
| Parties | Farva Jafri v. New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Character and Fitness, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
Farva Jafri
v.
New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Character and Fitness, et al.
CIVIL No. 1:22-cv-0039-JL
Opinion No. 2022 DNH 126
United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
October 18, 2022
Kevin A. Brooks, Esq.
Farva Jafri, Esq.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
JOSEPH N. LAPLANTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The pro se plaintiff in this case, Farva Jafri, is a licensed attorney who alleges that the defendants, state entities and officials presiding over the New Hampshire Bar admissions process, are discriminating against her based on her race and religion and violating her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Jafri asserts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Character and Fitness and the New Hampshire Supreme Court Office of Bar Admissions, as well as the general counsel of the Office of Bar Admissions in her individual and official capacities and seven members of the committee in their individual and official capacities. Jafri requests damages and “[i]njunctive relief sufficient to protect [her] from further harassment.”
The defendants move to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court should abstain from entertaining Jafri's lawsuit under the Younger abstention doctrine, in deference to the ongoing state bar admissions proceeding. The defendants also assert that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and quasi-judicial immunity. After reviewing the parties' submissions and holding oral argument, the court grants the motion to dismiss, finding that abstention is appropriate under Younger; the claims for damages against the committee, Office of Bar Admissions, and defendants in their official capacities cannot stand
under the Eleventh Amendment; and the defendants cannot be sued for damages in their individual capacities under quasi-judicial immunity. Having dismissed the suit, the court does not proceed to consider the defendants' additional argument that Jafri fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
I. Applicable legal standard
On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1),[1] “the party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court carries the burden of proving its existence.” Murphy v. U.S., 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995). But the court must “construe the [c]omplaint liberally and treat all well-pleaded facts as true, according the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Id. And any evidence submitted by the parties may ordinarily be considered. See Carroll v. U.S., 661 F.3d 87, 94 (1st Cir. 2011).
II. Background
Jafri became a member of the New York Bar in 2019. After this, she applied for admission to other state bars. She became a member of the New Jersey Bar in 2020, the Illinois Bar in 2020, the Massachusetts Bar in 2021, and the Maine Bar in 2021.
Jafri initiated her application for admission to the New Hampshire Bar in late 2020. In January 2021, she received an email from defendant Sherry Hieber, general counsel of the Office of Bar Admissions, notifying Jafri that she had not included a picture in her application. Jafri
replied with two forms of photo identification--her passport and her driver's license. In her license photograph, Jafri was wearing a hijab, a “headscarf that female adherents of the Islamic faith wear.”[2] Jafri claims that “after Jafri sent Defendant Hieber a photo of herself in the hijab, Defendant Hieber ceased communication with Jafri.”[3] Later in her complaint, however, Jafri discusses her further correspondence with Hieber, pertaining to the committee's assessment of Jafri's character and fitness.
Jafri alleges that Hieber sent her a letter in February 2021, in which Hieber “demand[ed] to know what Jafri's ties ‘internationally' were.”[4] In the letter, which Jafri submitted to the court, Hieber requested information about the nature of five civil matters in which Jafri was a party, which Jafri listed in her application; the scope of the legal practice at the law firm that Jafri owns; the number of attorneys employed at Jafri's firm; and the basis for the claim on the firm's website that it “consists of internationally recognized trial lawyers, crisis managers, and strategic advisors.”[5] Jafri replied that same month. In her letter, Jafri described the civil matters and her law firm's work, and she stated that she is “internationally recognized” because she is of Pakistani heritage and “well-known in that nation as an American lawyer and businesswoman,” and she has clients in countries outside of the United States.[6]
A couple of months later, on April 22, 2021, Jafri received a letter from Hieber via email, stating that the committee planned to interview her over a videoconferencing platform on May 4, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. In the interview notice, Hieber wrote that “[t]he [c]ommittee wishes to discuss information related to [Jafri's] response to question 7 regarding civil litigation” to which Jafri was a party, “and any other matters related to the petition.”[7] Hieber added that the interview would “provide [Jafri] with the opportunity to present information to the committee to meet [her] burden of proving [her] good moral character and fitness pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 42 VI,” and that the “committee's decisions are guided by the Character and Fitness standards contained in New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 42B.”[8]
Rule 42B provides, in part, that “[t]he applicant must prove his or her good moral character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence.” N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 42B IV. It also sets forth “[p]ositive characteristics to be considered” and identifies grounds for the denial of admission, including “[f]ailure to possess sufficient positive characteristics.” R. 42B VI, VII. The positive characteristics include the ability to “use good judgment on behalf of clients and in conducting one's professional business; . . . avoid acts which exhibit disregard for the rights or welfare of others; . . . [and] act diligently and reliably in fulfilling one's obligations to clients, attorneys, courts, and others.” R. 42B VI(3)-(5).
Hieber also stated in the interview notice that she would “communicate with [Jafri] by email to discuss the logistics of the interview.”[9] On the day of the interview, in what Jafri
describes as “an obvious sign of white supremacy, hostility, and disrespect towards Jafri, an Asian and Muslim individual,” Hieber sent Jafri a text message, rather than an email, in which she addressed Jafri using her first name, which she misspelled.[10] Jafri does not detail the contents of the message.
Nine individuals were present at the interview, and “Jafri was the only [person of color] in the entire [videoconference] room.”[11] According to Jafri, she “was never notified that nine people would be attending,” and she “could have obtained counsel” if she had been “provided with proper notice” of this fact.[12]
In her complaint, Jafri describes the interview and examples of the defendants' “bizarre and racist practices” and attempts to “mock[]” her and/or “embarrass and exclude Jafri from the legal profession in New Hampshire because she is Asian and Muslim.”[13] Jafri claims that one committee member, defendant Joseph McDowell, “told Jafri that she needed to give the [c]ommittee a full presentation on her character and fitness, and that it was her burden to prove to the [c]ommittee that she was fit to be admitted to the New Hampshire Bar.”[14] According to Jafri, “[n]owhere in Defendants'” interview notice “was [she] instructed to prepare a presentation.”[15] Jafri further alleges that defendant Peter Beeson said that other states “should
have only given [Jafri] a conditional acceptance to practice.”[16] According to the complaint, another defendant, Susan Davis, M.D., asked Jafri to read aloud before the committee Jafri's February 2021 letter, “which was already part of [her] admission application,” and which described her law firm and her heritage.[17] Jafri also alleges that Davis sought to embarrass Jafri and “wanted the entire [c]ommittee to hear that Jafri was of Pakistani descent and understand that she was . . . not ‘one of them.'”[18]
As part of her presentation, Jafri discussed the civil lawsuits to which she is a party, including litigation in Illinois with her former employer. Jafri left her former employment due to her boss's “involvement in the drug trade and the hostile work environment.”[19] Her former employer sued her for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secrets, and she sued the employer under the Equal Pay Act and for indemnification. Jafri and the committee members also discussed her upcoming deposition in a lawsuit with this employer. Jafri explained that if the committee wanted to view the deposition transcript, they “would likely first need to sign the protective order” in the case.[20]
Jafri attached the protective order to her complaint. It provides, in pertinent part, that it applies to documents that the parties designate as confidential, and certain individuals--such as the parties, the court and its personnel, and court reporters--are permitted to view the confidential
documents.[21] Under the protective order, the parties' consultants and experts may review confidential information if they sign the protective order, and “others” may view confidential information “by written consent of the producing party or upon order of the Court . . . .”[22]
Following the interview, Jafri and Hieber exchanged correspondence concerning the committee's request for the deposition transcript. First, Hieber notified Jafri that the committee required a copy of the transcript. Then, Jafri sent Hieber a letter explaining that she could provide the transcript, but the committee members “would need to sign the...
To continue reading
Request your trial