Newsome v. Dominique, 78-797C(3).

Decision Date20 September 1978
Docket NumberNo. 78-797C(3).,78-797C(3).
Citation455 F. Supp. 1373
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
PartiesEdward J. NEWSOME, Pamela D. Pullman, Freddie H. Rasheed, Diane H. Ridley, Mary P. Sheppard, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs, v. P. Pierre DOMINIQUE, in his official capacity as member of the Missouri State Board of Law Examiners, Edward R. Jayne, in his official capacity as member of the Missouri State Board of Law Examiners, Alan C. Kohn, in his official capacity as member of the Missouri State Board of Law Examiners, John F. Marvin, in his official capacity as member of the Missouri State Board of Law Examiners, Thomas G. Strong, in his official capacity as member of the Missouri State Board of Law Examiners, Defendants.

David A. Lang, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Richmond C. Coburn and Jonathan Ries, Coburn, Croft, Shepherd, Herzog & Putzell, St. Louis, Mo., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

NANGLE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs, who are all black law school graduates, filed this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 against defendants in their official capacities as members of the Missouri State Board of Law Examiners. Plaintiffs allege a denial of equal protection and due process of law in that defendants allegedly apply an arbitrary cutoff score for overall performance on the Missouri state bar examinations; apply an arbitrary cutoff score for performance on the multi-state portion of the examination; apply an arbitrary cutoff score for performance on the essay portion of the examination and/or each section of the essay portion; apply arbitrary standards for determining which applicants who score below the cutoff point will nevertheless be certified for a license to practice law; adopt and apply arbitrary and unreasonable re-testing procedures; routinely deny requests by applicants for reconsideration and fail to provide any opportunity for a hearing; grade examination papers with the specific intent and purpose of assigning failing scores to some papers; conspire to deny certification to a certain percentage of applicants; score examinations in an arbitrary manner; and discriminate against black applicants for certification on account of their race.

Defendants contend that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In addition, defendants argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction and that in any event, the Court should abstain herein. Plaintiffs have not responded to this motion.

The Board of Law Examiners is authorized to conduct the bar examination. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 8.02. In addition, the Board is required to certify to the Missouri Supreme Court all applicants who have passed the examination.

. . . and the applicants so certified who are otherwise qualified and who meet the residence requirements of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 8.13, shall be granted a license to practice law upon taking and subscribing the oath or affirmation prescribed . . .. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 8.08.

It is not the Board who determines which applicants shall be granted licenses to practice law; that is determined by the Missouri Supreme Court. Feldman v. State Board of Law Examiners, 438 F.2d 699 (8th Cir. 1971); Doe v. Pringle, 550 F.2d 596 (10th Cir. 1976); Whitfield v. Illinois Board of Law Examiners, 504 F.2d 474 (7th Cir. 1974).

This Court is clearly without jurisdiction to review the denial of a license to practice law with respect to particular applicants.

Admission to practice in a state and before its courts is primarily a matter of state concern. citation omitted And the determination of which individuals have the requisite knowledge and skill to practice may properly be committed to a body such as the Illinois Board of Law Examiners. citation omitted A federal court is not justified in interfering with this determination unless there is proof that it was predicated upon a constitutionally impermissible reason. Whi
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Bartlett v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners, 93 Civ. 4986(SS).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 3 July 1997
    ... ... Illinois Board of Law Examiners, 504 F.2d 474, 477 (7th Cir. 1974); see also Newsome v. Dominique, 455 F.Supp. 1373 (E.D.Mo.1978) (citing Whitfield and providing that "[a]llegations ... ...
  • Louis v. Supreme Court of Nevada
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 16 April 1980
    ... ... 1350 (E.D.N.C.1970); Shenfield v. Prather, 387 F.Supp. 676 (N.D.Miss.1974); Newsome v. Dominique, 455 F.Supp. 1373 (E.D.Mo.1978); see also Potts v. Honorable Justices of Supreme ... ...
  • Younger v. Colorado State Bd. of Law Examiners, 80-1220
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 3 September 1980
    ... ... denied, 387 U.S. 935, 87 S.Ct. 2061, 18 L.Ed.2d 998; Newsome v. Dominique, 455 F.Supp. 1373, 1375 (E.D.Mo.); see also Feldman v. State Board of Law Examiners, ... ...
  • Lucero v. Ogden, 82-1817
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 4 October 1983
    ... ... See also: Newsome v. Dominique, 455 F.Supp. 1373 (E.D.Mo.1978); Hooban v. Board of Governors of Washington State Bar ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT