Doyle v. Palmer

19‐939‐cv
Doyle v. Palmer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS
PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURTʹS LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY
MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE
(WITH THE NOTATION ʺSUMMARY ORDERʺ). A PARTY CITING TO A
SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in
the City of New York, on the 16th day of December, two thousand nineteen.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x
ROBERT DOYLE,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
‐v‐ 19‐939‐cv
DOUGLAS C. PALMER, in his official capacity
as the Clerk of the United states District Court
for the Eastern District of New York,
Defendant‐Appellee.
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x
FOR PLAINTIFF‐APPELLANT: TODD C. BANK, Kew Gardens, NY.
FOR DEFENDANT‐APPELLEE: MATTHEW J. MODAFFERI, Assistant United
States Attorney (Rachel G. Balaban, Varuni
Nelson, Assistant United States Attorneys, on
the brief), for Richard P. Donoghue, United
States Attorney for the Eastern District of New
York, Brooklyn, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Weinstein, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff‐appellant Robert Doyle (ʺDoyleʺ) appeals from a judgment of the
district court entered May 28, 2019, dismissing his claims against defendant‐appellee
Douglas C. Palmer, Clerk of Court of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (ʺDefendantʺ). By memorandum and order entered March 28,
2019, the district court granted Defendantʹs motion to dismiss the amended complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Doyle, an attorney, challenges the constitutionality of Eastern District of
New York (ʺE.D.N.Y.ʺ) Local Rule 1.3(a), which requires applicants seeking bar
admission in the district to submit an affidavit from an E.D.N.Y.‐barred attorney
attesting to the applicantʹs good moral character (the ʺsponsor affidavitʺ). Doyle claims
Local Rule 1.3(a) is unconstitutional for three reasons: (1) Congress unconstitutionally
‐2‐
delegated its rulemaking power to the Judiciary; (2) the rule violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and (3) the rule violates the First Amendment. We
assume the partiesʹ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues
on appeal.
ʺWe review a district courtʹs grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) de novo.ʺ Hernandez v. United States, 939 F.3d 191, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation
omitted). ʺTo survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.ʺ Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm. The
complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Doyleʹs claim that the requirement of
a sponsor affidavit is somehow unconstitutional is specious, and we reject it.
We have considered all of Doyleʹs arguments and conclude they are
without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine OʹHagan Wolfe, Clerk
‐3‐