Som v. Supreme Court of Alabama et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)
Filing
13
ORDER that: (1) plf's 12 objections are OVERRULED; (2) the 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (3) To the extent that any of Plf's claims rest on any alleged violations of the rights of other bar applicant s, Plf's claims are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction due to Plf's lack of standing to pursue those claims; (4) counts one, three, and five are DISMISSED in their entirety for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrin e; (5) Counts two and four, to the extent that they seek declaratory and injunctive relief related to Plfs application for admission to the bar, are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (6) Counts two and fo ur, to the extent that they present facial constitutional challenges to Rule VI(B) of the Alabama Supreme Court's Rules Governing Admission to the Alabama State Bar, are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, as Plf lacks Article III standing to pu rsue these claims; and (7) The court will delay entering final judgement for ten days to allow Plf an opportunity to move to amend his complaint. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/24/15. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ERIC M. SOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-519-WKW
[WO]
ORDER
On October 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation
(Doc. # 9) to which Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. # 12.) The court has conducted
an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to
which objections are made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court concludes that
the objections are without merit and that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
is due to be adopted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1)
Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 12) are OVERRULED;
(2)
The Recommendation (Doc. # 9) is ADOPTED;
(3)
To the extent that any of Plaintiff’s claims rest on any alleged
violations of the rights of other bar applicants, Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED
for lack of jurisdiction due to Plaintiff’s lack of standing to pursue those claims;
(4)
Counts one, three, and five are DISMISSED in their entirety for lack
of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine;
(5)
Counts two and four, to the extent that they seek declaratory and
injunctive relief related to Plaintiff’s application for admission to the bar, are
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine;
(6)
Counts two and four, to the extent that they present facial
constitutional challenges to Rule VI(B) of the Alabama Supreme Court’s Rules
Governing Admission to the Alabama State Bar, are DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction, as Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to pursue these claims; and
(7)
The court will delay entering final judgement for ten days to allow
Plaintiff an opportunity to move to amend his complaint.
DONE this 24th day of November, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?