The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-35861•Harold Ford v. Idaho State Bar;
10-35861Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 12, 2012
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ford consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.**
§ 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD FORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
IDAHO STATE BAR; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-35861
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00640-MHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 28, 2012***
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Harold Ford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging Idaho state bar decisions resolving his claims
FILED
MAR 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-35861 2
against a former attorney for misconduct and reimbursement of attorney’s fees.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall,
341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ford’s action as barred by the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine because the action is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of state bar
decisions, and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with
those decisions. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158; Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895,
898 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction where the
plaintiff “essentially asked the federal court to review the state court’s denial in a
judicial proceeding, and to afford him the same individual remedy he was denied in
state court” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).
Ford’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.