Leclerc v. Webb, Civ.A. 03-664.
| Decision Date | 02 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 03-664.,Civ.A. 03-664. |
| Citation | 270 F.Supp.2d 779 |
| Parties | Karen LECLERC, et al. v. Daniel A. WEBB, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Louis Roy Koerner, Jr., Law Offices of Louis R. Koerner, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff.
Maureen D Affleck, New Orleans, LA, pro se.
Richard P. Ieyoub, Louisiana Department of Justice Attorney General's Office, Baton Rouge, LA, Harry Rosenberg, Bruce Victor Schewe, Christopher K. Ralston, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Rec.Doc. 18) filed by Justices Jeffery P. Victory, Jeannette Theriot Knoll, Chet D. Traylor, Catherine D. "Kitty" Kimball, John L. Weimer, Bernette Joshua Johnson, in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and Daniel A. Webb and Harry J. Philips, Jr., in their official capacities as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Louisiana Committee on Bar Admissions, Plaintiffs' Appeal of the Order of the Magistrate Judge Granting a Protective Order and Staying All Discovery (Rec.Doc. 25) and Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec.Doc. 12) filed by Karen Leclerc, Guillaume Jarry, Beatrice Boulord, and Maureen Affleck.
Plaintiffs are non-immigrant aliens 1 residing in the United States pursuant to temporary visas. Plaintiffs have brought this suit challenging Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XVII, Section 3(B) which requires that every applicant to the Louisiana bar be a citizen or resident alien of the United States. They allege that Rule XVII, as currently interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court, is unconstitutional and/or preempted by federal law. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as an award of costs and attorney's fees. Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims arguing inter alia that the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment as well as the doctrines of judicial and legislative immunity. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief under federal law.
Plaintiffs currently reside in the United States under temporary visas which provide a date certain when they must leave the United States. Leclerc, Jarry, and Boulord are French citizens admitted to the United States pursuant to J-l visas. Affleck is a Canadian citizen admitted to the United States pursuant to an L-2 visa. All plaintiffs are graduates of foreign law schools. Plaintiffs desire to submit applications to sit for the July 2003 bar examination and believe themselves to be qualified but for their status as non-resident aliens.2
Affleck applied for an equivalency determination pursuant to Rule XVII, Section 6.3 On November 15, 2002, the Bar Admissions administrator informed Affleck that an equivalency determination would not be forthcoming because Affleck was neither a U.S. citizen nor resident alien. Rec. Doc. 8, Exhibit 9. Affleck did not petition the Louisiana Supreme Court for a review of that denial pursuant to Section 9 of Rule XVII.4 When this suit was filed, Leclerc Jarry, and Boulord had not yet applied for equivalency determinations.5 Although untimely under the Louisiana rules, Leclerc, Jarry, and Boulord submitted equivalency applications after Defendants argued (in their motion to dismiss) that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this suit.6
On March 6, 2003, Plaintiffs Leclerc, Jarry, and Boulord filed their original complaint seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief against Defendants as well as costs and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs named as defendants six of the seven Louisiana Supreme Court Justices—Jeffery P. Victory, Jeannette Theriot Knoll, Chet D. Traylor, Catherine D. "Kitty" KimbaU, John L. Weimer, and Bernette Joshua Johnson ("the Justices"), Daniel A. Webb, Chairman of the Louisiana Committee on Bar Admissions, and Harry J. Philips, Jr., Vice-Chairman of the Louisiana Committee on Bar Admissions ("the Bar Admissions Officials") (collectively "Defendants"). All Defendants were sued in their official capacities only.
The Court held a status conference on March 20, 2003, and set deadlines for briefing on cross motions for summary judgment: Rec. Doc. 7. Plaintiff Affleck joined this suit via amended complaint on March 27, 2003. Defendants moved to stay all discovery pending a determination on their immunity defenses and on May 1, 2003, the magistrate judge granted a stay. Rec. Doc. 17. Plaintiffs' appeal of that order is currently before the Court and is inextricably intertwined with the arguments raised in Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, Plaintiffs filed their fully-briefed motion in support of declaratory relief7 and Defendants filed their fully-briefed motion to dismiss. Both motions were set for hearing on May 21, 2003. On May 21, 2003, the Court held a status conference at Plaintiffs' request and at Plaintiffs' urging the motions were continued for hearing on June 4, 2003. The Court ordered supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs' immigration status, and on June 25, 2003, the Court heard oral argument.
In their motion for summary judgment Plaintiffs pray for a judgment:
1. Declaring the unconstitutionality of Section 3(B) of Rule XVII of the Rules of the Louisiana Supreme Court as interpreted by that Court to deny bar admission to "non-resident aliens";
2. Declaring that Section 3(B) of Rule XVII of the Rules of the Louisiana Supreme Court as interpreted by that Court is preempted by the plenary power of the Federal Government to set immigration policy;
3. Declaring that the Louisiana Supreme Court and the Louisiana Committee on Bar Admissions may not constitutionally deny plaintiffs the opportunity to sit for the Louisiana state bar examination solely on account of the fact that they are not citizens or resident aliens and to permit them to submit an application package, including that for equivalency determination if one has not already been submitted, so as to permit them to sit for the Louisiana state bar examination in July of 2003, provided that they meet all other requirements of Rule XVII, as reasonably interpreted;
4. Awarding Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs fail to present a justiciable case or controversy because their claims are not ripe for adjudication and because Plaintiffs lack standing. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrines of judicial immunity and/or legislative immunity. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, Defendants urge the Court to abstain from this matter. The Court addresses each argument in turn.
A litigant may object to a court's lack of jurisdiction through a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jurisdictional defects include immunity of the defendants in an action and the court's consequent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Bank One Texas v. United States, 157 F.3d 397, 403 & n. 12 (5th Cir.1998). Under Rule 12(b)(6) a court must dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court views all material allegations in plaintiffs complaint as true. See In re Mastercard Int'l, Inc., 313 F.3d 257, 261 (5th Cir.2000). Conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to defeat a motion to dismiss. Id.
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs rest their claims on factual assumptions and conjecture that do not present a "case" or "controversy" under Article III of the United States Constitution. Thus, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe for adjudication and that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their asserted claims.
Defendants point out that Leclerc, Jarry and Boulord have taken none of the required steps in order to sit for the Louisiana bar exam. Thus, Leclerc, Jarry and Boulord have not been subject to any adverse action by Defendants on any basis including their alienage. Defendants point out that Leclerc, Jarry, and Boulord must obtain equivalency determinations for their foreign law school educations, and that an adverse determination on equivalency would moot any issue as to their residency status. Because Leclerc, Jarry, and Boulord have been subject to no adverse action, Defendants argue that they also lack standing to bring this suit because they seek redress for an injury that has not and may never occur.
Defendants concede that Affleck submitted a timely application for an equivalency determination and that her application was not considered due to her status as a non-resident alien. However Defendant contend that Affleck also has a ripeness/standing problem because she did not avail herself of the review procedures provided in Supreme Court Rule XVII, Section 9.8 Defendants contend that at the conclusion of that appeal process, which all Plaintiffs would be required to complete, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would then have deprived this Court of jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs' claims.9
Although she did not avail herself of the review procedures provided in the Supreme Court rules, Affleck asserts that federal law does not require exhaustion of state remedies prior to bringing a claim alleging violations of federal law. Moreover, she asserts that any appeal would have been futile anyway. Given then that the bar committee has cited Affleck's alienage as the basis for refusing to consider her equivalency application, Affleck asserts that she has a justiciable claim.
Leclerc, Jarry, and Boulord argue that Affleck's situation demonstrates the futility of submitting an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahler v. Judicial Council of Cal.
...was not entitled to legislative immunity from suit], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in LeClerc v. Webb (E.D.La. 2003) 270 F.Supp.2d 779, 792-793.)11 This immunity also extends to suits for injunctive and declaratory relief. (Esparza, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 460, 168 C......
-
Mahler v. Judicial Council of Cal.
...and judge was not entitled to legislative immunity from suit], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in LeClerc v. Webb (E.D.La. 2003) 270 F.Supp.2d 779, 792-793.)11 This immunity also extends to suits for injunctive and declaratory relief. (Esparza, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. ......
-
Boudreaux v. La. State Bar Ass'n
...1.1(c) compelling membership in the LSBA is not at issue. Rather, the only issue is whether that requirement is constitutional. LeClerc , 270 F. Supp. 2d at 795 (holding that because the meaning of the challenged Louisiana Supreme Court rule was not at issue, and the only issue was whether ......
-
Simmang v. Texas Bd. of Law Examiners
...to expand the category of `fundamental rights' beyond those which clearly have a constitutional underpinning"); Leclerc v. Webb, 270 F.Supp.2d 779, 798 (E.D.La.2003) (finding no constitutional right to admission to a state's bar); Verner v. State of Colorado, 533 F.Supp. 1109, 1116 (D.Colo.......