DOYLE v. PALMER (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Robert Doyle (“Doyle”) appeals from a judgment of the district court entered May 28, 2019, dismissing his claims against defendant-appellee Douglas C. Palmer, Clerk of Court of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“Defendant”). By memorandum and order entered March 28, 2019, the district court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Doyle, an attorney, challenges the constitutionality of Eastern District of New York (“E.D.N.Y.”) Local Rule 1.3(a), which requires applicants seeking bar admission in the district to submit an affidavit from an E.D.N.Y.-barred attorney attesting to the applicant's good moral character (the “sponsor affidavit”). Doyle claims Local Rule 1.3(a) is unconstitutional for three reasons: (1) Congress unconstitutionally delegated its rulemaking power to the Judiciary; (2) the rule violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and (3) the rule violates the First Amendment. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

“We review a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo.” Hernandez v. United States, 939 F.3d 191, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm. The complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Doyle's claim that the requirement of a sponsor affidavit is somehow unconstitutional is specious, and we reject it.

We have considered all of Doyle's arguments and conclude they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.