Roger Gordon v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Committee on Bar Examiners;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EN/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGER GORDON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,
Committee on Bar Examiners; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15438
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-03341-SI
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Roger Gordon appeals pro se from the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

EN/Research 09-15438 2
§ 1291. We review de novo, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973
(9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gordon’s due process claim because he
had not sought review by the California Supreme Court. See Giannini v. Comm. of
Bar Examiners of State Bar of Cal., 847 F.2d 1434, 1435 (9th Cir. 1988) (per
curiam) (“Under California law, only the state supreme court, not the Committee of
Bar Examiners, has the authority to grant or deny admission to the bar.”); see also
Chaney v. State Bar of Cal., 386 F.2d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 1967) (“An applicant
seeking review of a decision by the Committee must file a petition for review by
the California Supreme Court.”). “Until such review is completed, an applicant has
no basis for any claim of deprivation under federal law because no deprivation has
taken place.” Giannini, 847 F.2d at 1435.
The district court properly dismissed Gordon’s equal protection claim
because he failed to allege that persons similarly situated suffered unequal
treatment or that defendants acted with intent to discriminate based on his
membership in a protected class. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d
1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming that the plaintiff must allege that defendants
“acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon
membership in a protected class”).

-- 2 of 3 --

EN/Research 09-15438 3
The district court properly dismissed Gordon’s First Amendment claim
because attending an ABA-accredited school is not the only path for qualifying for
the California state bar examination and Gordon is not deprived of his right not to
associate with an ABA-accredited school. See Cal. Bus & Prof Code § 6060(e)
(outlining several alternative paths for qualifying to sit for the state bar
examination); see also Besig v. Dolphin Boating & Swimming Club, 683 F.2d
1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 1982) (rejecting plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim brought
under nonassociation theory where membership in club may have been more
favorable but was not mandatory to access desired facilities).
Gordon’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --