Kristofer Kastner v. Texas Board of Law Examiners, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50201 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: JES , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 11/22/2010 [10-50201]

Kristofer Kastner v. Texas : 10-50201 Examiners, et al CaseBoard of Law Document: 00511280456

Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
November 1, 2010 N o . 10-50201 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

K R I S T O F E R THOMAS KASTNER, P la in t iff - Appellant v. T E X A S BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS; STATE OF TEXAS; JULIA E. V A U G H A N , Individually, and as Board Member and Executive Director of t h e Texas Board of Law Examiners; BRUCE WYATT, Individually, and as S t a ff Attorney for the Texas Board of Law Examiners; JACK MARSHALL, I n d iv id u a lly , and as Director of Character and Fitness, Texas Board of Law E x a m in e r s ; DAN POZZA, Individually, and as Board Member, Texas Board of L a w Examiners; JERRY GRISSOM, Individually, and as Board Member of t h e Texas Board of Law Examiners; JOHN SIMPSON, Individually, and as B o a r d Member of the Texas Board of Law Examiners; SUSAN HENRICKS, I n d iv id u a lly , and as Prosecutor for the Texas Board of Law Examiners, D e fe n d a n t s - Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas N o . 1:09-CV-916

B e fo r e HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-50201 Document: 00511280456 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2010

No. 10-50201 P la in t iff-a p p e lla n t Kristofer Thomas Kastner, proceeding pro se, appeals t h e district court's dismissal of his lawsuit against the Texas Board of Law E x a m in e r s ("BLE"), the State of Texas, and various individuals connected with t h o s e entities. Kastner asserts several claims arising from the defendants' D e c e m b e r 2009 denial of his application to practice law in Texas. 1 After a m a g is tr a t e judge granted Kastner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the d i s tr ic t court dismissed Kastner's complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). K a s t n e r first applied to practice law in Texas shortly after passing the bar e x a m in a t io n in 1999. After determining that Kastner lacked the requisite moral c h a r a c t e r and that he suffered from a chemical dependency, the BLE denied K a s t n e r 's application, but stated that he would be allowed to apply again after J u ly 2001 if he attended a rehabilitation program and refrained from violating t h e law. Kastner eventually reapplied for admission in 2005. Upon

in v e s t ig a t io n , the BLE reached a preliminary determination that Kastner still la c k e d good moral character, based in part on two criminal convictions in the in t e r v e n in g years, and that he still suffered from a chemical dependency, based o n his failure to attend the rehabilitation program. After a full hearing and a s e r ie s of delays due to legal action, the BLE issued its final decision denying K a s t n e r 's 2005 application on December 17, 2009. This lawsuit followed. T h is is not Kastner's first lawsuit challenging the BLE decisions. Kastner file d a materially identical lawsuit in 2007 following the BLE's preliminary

Specifically, Kastner alleges that the denial of admission violated his due process rights, his constitutional right to Full Faith and Credit as implement by 28 U.S.C. § 1738, and Tex. Gov. Code §§ 82.028 and 82.030. He also alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his civil rights and libel.

1

2

Case: 10-50201 Document: 00511280456 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/01/2010

No. 10-50201 d e t e r m in a t io n that he still lacked good moral character. We ultimately held that t h e district court lacked jurisdiction over Kastner's claims at that time.2 With r e s p e c t to the 2005 application, we held that Kastner's claims were not ripe for r e v ie w because the BLE had not yet issued a final decision;3 in the alternative, w e held that Younger abstention prohibited the federal courts from considering K a s t n e r 's constitutional challenges to the state BLE proceedings.4 To the extent K a s t n e r also sought to challenge the denial of his 1999 application, we held that w e were barred from hearing those claims by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.5 R o o k e r -F e ld m a n holds that "lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state c o u r t judgments when the constitutional claims are `inextricably intertwined' w it h [a] challenged state court judgment." 6 A lt h o u g h Kastner filed the present complaint after the BLE's final d e c is io n , and thus his claims are now ripe, the district court correctly held that t h e complaint must be dismissed because Kastner remains unable to overcome t h e bar of Rooker-Feldman. State bar admissions determinations are judicial p r o c e e d in g s ,7 and any challenge must be raised by appeal to the state appellate

See Kastner v. Tex. Bd. of Law Exam'rs, 278 F. App'x 346 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished).
3

2

Id. at 348­49.

Id. at 349 (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)); see also Wrightman v. Tex. Sup. Ct., 84 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1996). Id. (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 (1983)).
6 5

4

Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group., Inc., 355 F.3d 345, 350 (5th Cir. 2003). See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482.

7

3

Case: 10-50201 Document: 00511280456 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/01/2010

No. 10-50201 c o u r ts , not by collateral attack in a federal district court.8 Kastner insists that h is claims fall outside of Rooker-Feldman because he purports to challenge the c o n s t it u t io n a lit y of the BLE rules generally, rather than just their application in his case, but we already held in his prior lawsuit that his complaint can only b e understood as an as-applied challenge.9 B e c a u s e there is no material difference between Kastner's prior lawsuit a n d his present complaint for purposes of Rooker-Feldman, the district court was c o r r e c t to dismiss Kastner's new complaint as frivolous. ju d g m e n t of the district court is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the

8

See generally Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 1994). See Kastner, 278 F. App'x at 349.

9

4