EDELMIRO MARTINEZ RIVERA, PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE TRIAS MONGE ET AL., DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review state court disciplinary orders; such review is limited to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
Appellant sued members of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of constitutional rights in his bar suspension. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1343 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s complaint alleged that the members of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, defendants-appellees, violated his constitutional rights in suspending him from membership in the Puerto Rican bar. The action was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and grounded jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as barred by res judicata.
The settled law, with which we agree, is “that disciplinary orders of the highest court of a state may be reviewed federally only in the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and not by suits in the district courts.”* Grossgold v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 557 F. 2d 122, 125 (7th Cir. 1977); Doe v. Pringle, 550 F. 2d 596 (10th Cir. 1976); Mackay v. Nesbett, 412 F. 2d 846 (9th Cir. 1969); Ginger v. Circuit Court for Wayne County, 372 F. 2d 621 (6th Cir. 1967). Cf. In re MacNeil, 266 F. 2d 167, 172 (1st Cir. 1959) (noting that constitutional claims in state disbarment proceedings may be preserved for federal review by the Supreme Court under its certiorari jurisdiction but do not provide a basis for removal). This complaint in essence seeks review of a state court’s disciplinary order, although it is couched in terms of a suit against the individual members of the court. Appellant “cannot invoke the provisions of § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act in federal district court so as to circumvent and avoid his obligation to seek direct review in the United States Supreme Court.” Doe v. Pringle, supra, 550 F. 2d at 599. We agree with the district court’s dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
*
This rule might be questionable if no review of the constitutional issues were available in the state court. Grossgold v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 557 F. 2d 122, 124 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, however, constitutional claims were presented to and considered by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. Any particular claims that were not presented would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Lovely v. Laliberte, 498 F. 2d 1261 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1038, 95 S.Ct. 526, 42 L.Ed.2d 316 (1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nydia Maria Diaz-Buxo v. Hon. Jose T. Trias Monge, 593 F.2d 153 (1st Cir. 1979)
-
Anton J. Miller v. The Wash. State BAR Ass'n, 679 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1982)
-
Phelps v. Kan. Supreme Court, 662 F.2d 649 (10th Cir. 1981)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lovely v. Laliberte, 498 F.2d 1261 (1st Cir. 1974)
- DOE v. Pringle, 550 F.2d 596 (10th Cir. 1976)
- Verville v. Botsford Gen. Hosp., 419 U.S. 1038 (U.S. 1974)
- Skidmore v. Nat'l R.R. Adjustment Bd., 419 U.S. 1038 (U.S. 1974)
- MacKAY v. The Honorable Buell A. Nesbett & the Honorable John H. Dimond, 412 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Ginger v. Cir. Court FOR the Cnty. OF Wayne, 372 F.2d 621 (6th Cir. 1967)
- Grossgold v. Supreme Court OF Ill., 557 F.2d 122 (7th Cir. 1977)
- In re Angus M. MacNEIL. Petition of Anthony Julian, 266 F.2d 167 (1st Cir. 1959)