Scheer v. Pasternak, 052218 FED9, 17-55765

Docket Nº:17-55765
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.
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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted May 15, 2018 [**]

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

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 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. 1995) (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 court properly dismissed Scheer's constitutional challenge to Cal. Rules of Court 9.16(b) because Scheer failed to state a plausible claim for relief. See Scheer v. Kelly, 817 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 2016) (California attorney disciplinary proceedings do not violate an attorney's First Amendment, due process...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP