Wade ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard A. HONN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: October 23, 2019
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Wade Robertson, Pro Se Suzanne Grandt, State Bar of California, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants - Appellees Richard A. Honn, Catherine D. Purcell, Judith A. Epstein, Lucy Armendariz, James P. Fox, Danette E. Meyers, Janet L. Brewer, Mark Andrew Broughton, Michael George Colantuono, Glenda Corcoran, Terrance W. Flanigan, Renee Labran, Jason Pang Fe Lee, Joanna R. Mendoza, Richard Ramirez, Sean M. Selegue, Stacie Spector, Brandon N. Stallings, Alan King Steinbrecher, Todd Frederick Stevens, Gregory P. Dresser, Cydney Batchelor, Sherrie B. McLetchie, Robert A. Henderson, Esther Rogers, Elizabeth Parker, Rebecca Farmer, Laura Ernde Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants - Appellees Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Kathryn M. Werdegar, Ming W. Chin, Carol A. Corrigan, Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Leondra R. Kruger Marlon Quintanilla Paz, Seward & Kissel LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants - Appellees Wallace E. Shipp, Jr., Clay H. Smith III Mark G. Bonino, Hayes, Scott, Bonino, Ellingson, Guslani, Simonson & Clause, LLP, San Carlos, CA, for Defendant - Appellee William C. Cartinhour, Jr.
Wade Robertson, a disbarred California attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his state bar disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 982 n.19 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Robertson’s claims requesting injunctive relief arising out of the then-pending California State Bar disciplinary proceedings as barred by the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings. See Hirsh v. Justices of Supreme Court of State of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 712-15 (9th Cir. 1995) (listing the requirements for Younger abstention and dismissing action arising from state bar disciplinary proceedings as barred by the Younger abstention doctrine). Contrary to Robertson’s contention, none of the exceptions to the Younger abstention doctrine apply.
The district court did not err in declining to consider for reasons of comity Robertson’s claim seeking to vacate the judgment of sister courts. See FDIC v. Aaronian, 93 F.3d 636, 639 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Although the registering court has wide discretion to entertain a challenge to the underlying judgment, such motions are disfavored. Registering courts generally prefer litigants to bring motions for postjudgment relief in the rendering court.”); see id. (“Courts of appeal review with deference a registering court’s decision to defer to the rendering court, if they review them at all.”).
Robertson’s, Cartinhour’s and the State Bar defendants’ requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 40, and 46) are granted.
Robertson’s motion to strike Volume 2 of Cartinhour’s Supplemental Excerpts of Record (Docket Entry No. 54) is denied.
Robertson’s motion to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 63) is granted in part. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 64. The motion is denied in all other respects.
Robertson’s motion for reconsideration of the July 31, 2019 clerk order (Docket Entry No. 70) is denied.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.