Stephen Kerr Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association, a Washington association;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN KERR EUGSTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, a Washington association;
et al.
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35743
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00375-JLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Kerr Eugster, an attorney and member of the Washington State Bar
Association (“WSBA”), appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging freedom of speech and association claims under
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-35743
the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012)
(en banc), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Eugster’s claims relating to his
compulsory membership in the WSBA because an attorney’s mandatory
membership with a state bar association is constitutional. See Keller v. State Bar
of Cal., 496 U.S. 1, 13 (1990) (“[T]he compelled association and integrated bar are
justified by the State’s interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the
quality of legal services.”); Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 843 (1961)
(Brennan, J., plurality opinion) (state bar association may constitutionally require
compulsory membership and payment of dues without impinging on protected
rights of association). Contrary to Eugster’s contentions, this court cannot overrule
binding authority because “[a] decision of the Supreme Court will control that
corner of the law unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules or modifies
it.” Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001).
The district court properly dismissed Eugster’s claim that the WSBA
improperly funds certain activities because Eugster failed to allege facts sufficient
to show an improper use of his mandatory annual WSBA bar dues. See Keller, 496
U.S. at 14 (state bar may spend its members’ dues “for the purpose of regulating

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-35743
the legal profession or improving the quality of the legal service available to the
people of the State” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --