Witzke v. Idaho State Bar

• Decision Date: 29 November 2022
• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-00090-REP
• Parties: BROOKS M. WITZKE, Plaintiff, v. IDAHO STATE BAR, MATTHEW K. WILDE, in his official capacity, KURT D. HOLZER, in his official capacity, and MAUREEN R. BRALEY, in her official capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

BROOKS M. WITZKE, Plaintiff,
v.
IDAHO STATE BAR, MATTHEW K. WILDE, in his official capacity, KURT D. HOLZER, in his official capacity, and MAUREEN R. BRALEY, in her official capacity, Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00090-REP

United States District Court, D. Idaho

November 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 8) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WAIVE JURY DEMAND (DKT. 13) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE (DKT. 15) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND (DKT. 30) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SUR-REPLY (DKT. 38) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (DKT. 53)

Raymond E. Patricco Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

Pending is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 8), Plaintiff's Motion to Waive Jury Trial Previously Demanded and for Case to Proceed as a Bench Trial (“Motion to Waive Jury Demand”) (Dkt. 13), Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for an Order to Show Cause for Civil Contempt (“Motion to Strike”) (Dkt. 15), Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Dkt. 30), Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply (“Motion for Sur-reply”) (Dkt. 38), and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Evidence of England Reservation in State Court Appeal (“Motion for Judicial Notice”) (Dkt. 53). All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 25). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion to Waive Jury Demand, Motion to Strike, Motion to Amend, and Motion for

1

Sur-reply are denied; Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice is granted in part and denied in part; and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

This case concerns whether bar admission rules enforced by Defendants are facially invalid under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Defendants are the Idaho State Bar (the “ISB”) and three ISB officials, sued in their official capacities. The ISB, through its Board of Commissioners (the “Board”), assists the Idaho Supreme Court in administering the practice of law in the state by promulgating bar admission rules (subject to the Supreme Court's approval), investigating and examining bar applicants to ensure they possess the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and certifying a list of qualified applicants to the Supreme Court for admission. See IDAHO CODE §§ 3-101, -408; Compl. ¶ 2 (Dkt. 1). To aid its review of applicants' character and fitness, the ISB created the Character and Fitness Committee (“CF Committee”), which reviews applications referred to it and makes admission recommendations to the Board. I.B.C.R.^[1] 209, 903(f).

Plaintiff Brooks M. Witzke is a Delaware native who attended Concordia University School of Law in Boise, Idaho. Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff suffers from several mental health diagnoses, which he manages with professional treatment. Id. ¶¶ 35-36. Despite this, he performed well in law school, earning multiple CALI Awards^[2] and graduating third in his class in 2019. Id. ¶ 13. After graduation, Plaintiff applied to sit for the July 2020 Idaho bar exam. Id.

The ISB denied his application. Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff alleges that the ISB concluded he was

2

“mentally or emotionally unstable to the extent that, in the opinion of the [the ISB], the Applicant is not suited to practice law.” Id. ¶¶ 13, 26.

Plaintiff contested the ISB's decision denying his application and petitioned for a show cause hearing under Idaho Bar Commission Rule 215. Id. ¶ 32. He alleges that Defendants engaged in a variety of discriminatory and unlawful conduct before, during, and after the hearing. See id. ¶¶ 25-49. Among other things, he alleges that Defendants admitted to ADA violations; surreptitiously obtained Plaintiff's psychiatric records from another state; and perjured themselves. Id. ¶¶ 25, 33-43. Although the hearing officer held that the ISB had not carried its burden to establish that Plaintiff was mentally or emotionally unstable to the extent that he could not practice law, the ISB did not change course and affirmed its denial of his application on character and fitness grounds. Id. ¶ 47. Plaintiff appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, which affirmed the ISB's decision on February 4, 2022.^[3] Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A (Dkt. 8-2). He subsequently reapplied to sit for the Idaho bar exam.^[4] Compl. ¶ 49 (Dkt. 1).

Less than a month after the Supreme Court denied his first bar application, Plaintiff initiated this action. See generally id. He alleges that the denial of his first bar application demonstrates that Defendants administer a discriminatory and unlawful system of reviewing bar applications, including engaging in practices and enforcing bar admission rules that are facially

3

invalid under federal statutes and the Constitution. See Compl. at p. 2 (Dkt. 1); see also id. ¶¶ 49-52. He asserts claims for (i) violation of Title II of the ADA, (ii) violation of Section 504 of the RA, and (iii) deprivation of substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 55-99. Plaintiff requests that the Court declare several bar admission rules facially invalid under the ADA, RA, and Fourteenth Amendment and enjoin Defendants from enforcing them. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges Idaho Bar Commission Rules 204, 208, 210(a)(3)(H), and 210(a)(3)(I) (collectively “the Challenged Rules”).

Rules 204 and 208 delineate Defendants' ability to investigate bar applicants. In pertinent part, Rule 204 states:

(a) Disclosure. No one shall be licensed who fails to fully disclose to the Board all information requested of an Applicant on the Application or by the Board or CF Committee

(b) Complete Application. An Application is considered complete when the Bar is satisfied that it has received full and sufficient responses to every question in the Application and all required or requested supporting information and documentation.

I.B.C.R. 204. Correspondingly, Rule 208 states in relevant part:

(a) Authority to Investigate. The Board shall investigate each Applicant's character and fitness to practice law in such manner as the Board deems appropriate.

(b) Reference of Application for Investigation. The Board may refer any Application to the CF Committee or Bar Counsel for the purpose of investigating and making recommendations on any matter connected with the Application.

(c) Character and Fitness Examination. Upon reasonable notice, an Applicant may be required to appear before the Board, CF Committee or Bar Counsel and submit to a character and fitness examination regarding any matter deemed relevant by the Board, CF Committee or Bar Counsel to a proper consideration of the pending Application. The examination shall be reported by a court reporter. The Applicant shall be responsible for the court reporter's fee and transcription costs and shall not be admitted to practice law

4

unless the Bar is reimbursed for such fee and costs. Failure to appear before the Board, CF Committee or Bar Counsel as noticed shall result in denial of the Application.

I.B.C.R. 208.

Rule 210 - and relevant here, subsections 210(a)(3)(H) and 210(a)(3)(I) - in turn, lists standards for disqualification. Rule 210 provides:

(a) The following shall constitute criteria for disqualification of an Applicant on character and fitness grounds. . .

(3) Any conduct which, in the judgment of the CF Committee or Board, demonstrates that the Applicant has exhibited conduct substantially evidencing an inclination to. . .

(H) Fail to exercise substantial self-control, including excessive and continuing violation of traffic rules, improper use of drugs or excessive use of alcohol; or

(I) Be mentally or emotionally unstable to the extent that, in the opinion of the CF Committee or Board, the Applicant is not suited to practice law[.]

I.B.C.R. 210.

Together, Plaintiff alleges that the Challenged Rules are facially invalid because (i) they allow Defendants to subject mentally disabled bar applicants to intrusive and embarrassing investigations into their mental health; (ii) require such applicants to pay out-of-pocket for additional investigation fees, including the cost of a psychiatric examination; (iii) afford Defendants the discretion to deny the applications of such applicants based on nothing more than a prior mental health diagnosis and the Defendants' subjective opinion that the applicant is mentally or emotionally unstable (instead of an objective determination by medical professionals that the applicant poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others); and (iv) are not rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of ensuring competence of practitioners,

5

as evidenced by the lack of corresponding invasive inquiries for applicants with potentially dangerous physical disabilities and practicing lawyers who suffer from mental illness or substance abuse. See generally Compl. (Dkt. 1).

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 8). In support of their Motion, Defendants requested that the Court take judicial notice of an Idaho Supreme Court decision affirming the denial of Plaintiff's first bar application (“the Supreme Court Decision” or “the Decision”). Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 5 n.2 (Dkt. 9-1). Generally speaking, Defendants argued that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter, Plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata, and Plaintiff could not meet the high burden required of a facial challenge. See id.

Plaintiff moved to strike the Motion to Dismiss, arguing that, because it relied on the Supreme Court Decision, it was “premised upon a storyline and main theme that relies on facts- and inserts extraneous documents-outside the...