Kastner v. Texas Board of Law Examiners ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    May 14, 2008
    No. 07-51145                     Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Summary Calendar                           Clerk
    KRISTOFER THOMAS KASTNER,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    TEXAS BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:07-CV-397
    Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Plaintiff-Appellant Kristofer Thomas Kastner, pro se, appeals the district
    court’s dismissal of his lawsuit alleging that the Board of Law Examiners
    violated his constitutional rights in denying him admission to the State Bar of
    Texas.
    Kastner is a prospective attorney residing in Texas who has passed the bar
    examination. However, in 1999, after a hearing, the Texas Board of Law
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 07-51145
    Examiners (“BLE”) determined that Kastner did not have the requisite moral
    character to be licensed to practice law in Texas and that he suffered from a
    chemical dependency. On these grounds, in 2000, the BLE denied Kastner’s
    application, but allowed him to petition for admission again in July 2001 and
    further set conditions for Kastner to follow regarding violations of the law, the
    use of alcohol and drugs, and attendance at rehabilitation. In 2005, more than
    five years after the initial denial, Kastner reapplied for admission to the bar.
    The BLE made a preliminary determination that Kastner still lacked good moral
    character and suffered from a chemical dependancy because he had not complied
    with the “curative measures” it had delineated.1 A hearing was scheduled for
    August 2006. Due to requests for continuances by both parties, the hearing has
    not yet been conducted.
    In the meantime, Kastner filed a federal lawsuit, Kastner v. Texas Board
    of Law Examiners, et al., 07-CV-086-SS (“Kastner I”), which alleged a number
    of federal and state constitutional claims stemming from his failure to be
    admitted to the bar. On May 25, 2007, the district court dismissed the complaint
    in Kastner I as frivolous pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2). The court found
    that Kastner’s claims were nonjusticiable for lack of jurisdiction, based both on
    the fact that the BLE had yet to issue a final decision on Kastner’s 2005
    application and on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
    However, on May 21, 2007, prior to the district court’s dismissal of Kastner
    I, Kastner filed another complaint in federal court predicated on the BLE’s
    failure to admit him to the bar, Kastner v. Texas Board of Law Examiners, et al.,
    07-CV-397 (“Kastner II”). Specifically, in Kastner II, Kastner alleges that the
    BLE violated his due process rights in making its determination in 2000 and
    preliminary determination in 2005 that he is morally unfit for admission to the
    1
    Apparently, in the intervening years, Kastner had been convicted of obstructing a
    peace officer in Mesa, Colorado, and driving while intoxicated in Harris County, Texas.
    2
    No. 07-51145
    Texas Bar. Further, Kastner alleges that, by considering certain parts of his
    criminal history in making these determinations, the BLE also deprived him of
    his rights under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States
    Constitution and 
    28 U.S.C. § 1738
    . He also alleges that the BLE breached its
    “duty,” pursuant to Texas Government Code § 82.028, to cite him only for those
    factors enumerated in § 82.028 and to properly review materials in a licensure
    case. The district court dismissed Kastner II on the same basis as Kastner I,
    finding the suit frivolous under § 1915(e)(2) and concluding that Kastner’s
    claims were not ripe and that the doctrines of Younger and Rooker-Feldman
    precluded review. Kastner appeals the dismissal of Kastner II.
    To the extent that Kastner requests relief related to his current bar
    application, his claims are not yet ripe for review. The Supreme Court has
    stated that the “ripeness doctrine is drawn both from Article III limitations on
    judicial power and from prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction.”
    Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 
    509 U.S. 43
    , 57 n18 (1993). “A court should
    dismiss a case for lack of ‘ripeness’ when the case is abstract or hypothetical.”
    Monk v. Huston, 
    340 F.3d 279
    , 282 (5th Cir. 2003). In determining whether a
    matter is ripe for judicial review we consider “the fitness of the issues for judicial
    decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.”
    Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Wolfe, 
    212 F.3d 891
    , 895 (5th Cir. 2000). Here, the
    hearing scheduled by the BLE regarding Kastner’s application has not been
    conducted and the BLE has not yet made a final determination as to his
    application for admission. Because Kastner has not yet been denied admission
    to the bar, his claims are merely hypothetical, and our review is barred by the
    ripeness doctrine. See United Transp. Union v. Foster, 
    205 F.3d 851
    , 857 (5th
    Cir. 2000) (“Ripeness separates those matters that are premature because the
    injury is speculative and may never occur from those that are appropriate for
    judicial review.”).
    3
    No. 07-51145
    Further, under Younger v. Harris, 
    401 U.S. 37
     (1971), federal courts must
    refrain from considering requests for injunctive or declaratory relief based upon
    constitutional challenges to ongoing state civil proceedings.         There is a
    three-prong test for determining whether the Younger abstention doctrine is
    applicable: (1) the dispute must involve an “ongoing state judicial proceeding,”
    (2) an important state interest in the subject matter of the proceeding must be
    implicated, and (3) the state proceedings must afford an adequate opportunity
    to raise constitutional challenges. Wightman v. Tex. Supreme Ct., 
    84 F.3d 188
    ,
    189 (5th Cir. 1996). Here, the state proceedings are ongoing, the proceedings
    implicate important state interests relating to the regulation of lawyers, and
    there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings for Kastner to raise his
    constitutional challenges. Therefore, to the extent that Kastner seeks injunctive
    or declaratory relief with respect to the BLE’s consideration of his current bar
    application, the district court correctly held that it was proper for it to abstain
    from hearing these claims under Younger.
    Finally, we are barred from hearing any claims relating to the 2000 BLE
    decision under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 
    263 U.S. 413
     (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 
    460 U.S. 462
    , 483 (1983).
    Under this doctrine, “lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court
    judgments when the constitutional claims are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with [a]
    challenged state court judgment.” Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group,
    Inc., 
    355 F.3d 345
    , 350 (5th Cir. 2003). A state bar’s denial of admission is a
    state judicial act over which a federal court has no jurisdiction. See Feldman,
    
    460 U.S. at 482-83
    .
    On appeal, Kastner argues that he is challenging the constitutionality of
    the BLE rules generally, not only as applied to him. However, an examination
    of Kastner’s complaint belies this contention. All of his allegations stem from
    action taken by the BLE upon his application, including the alleged failure of the
    4
    No. 07-51145
    BLE to comply with Texas Government Code § 82.028. His complaint does not
    adequately set forth a general, facial challenge to the constitutionality of the
    Texas Bar admission rules. Rather, it sets forth a challenge to the BLE’s
    decision in his case alleging that the the BLE’s action was unconstitutional. The
    district court lacks jurisdiction to review such a challenge. See Feldman, 
    460 U.S. at 486
     (holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction “over challenges
    to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings
    even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was
    unconstitutional”).
    Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Kastner’s claims, it did
    not err in dismissing his complaint under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2). Therefore, for
    the reasons set forth above, Appellee’s motion for summary affirmance is
    GRANTED and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellee’s
    motion to stay the briefing deadline is DISMISSED as MOOT. Kastner’s Motion
    for Reconsideration is GRANTED, and the Court considered his response in
    granting Appellee’s motion for summary affirmance. Kastner’s Motion for Costs
    and Fees is DENIED.
    5