McKenna v. DeSisto et al

Filing 17

SUMMARY ORDER denying 3 Motion for TRO; Plaintiff to file memorandum on or before 6/27/14. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante, District of NH on 6/12/14. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Keven A. McKenna
v.

Civil No. 14-cv-260-JNL

Marc DeSisto, J. Joseph
Baxter, and Paul Suttell
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff Keven McKenna is a Rhode Island attorney who, over
the course of the past several years, has been the subject of
disciplinary proceedings by the Rhode Island Disciplinary Board
for alleged violations of the Rhode Island Code of Professional
Conduct.

By the court’s count, this is the third action McKenna

has filed in as many years seeking to enjoin those proceedings.
This court dismissed both prior actions, reasoning that, under
the doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971),
it was required to abstain from exercising jurisdiction because
doing so would interfere with an ongoing state administrative
proceeding that both implicated an important state interest and
provided an adequate opportunity for McKenna to advance his
challenges.

See McKenna v. Gershkoff, No. 12-cv-904 (D.R.I. July

3, 2013); McKenna v. DeSisto, No. 11-cv-602 (D.R.I. Sept. 27,
2012).

McKenna unsuccessfully appealed the dismissal of the

first of the two actions to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed
in a summary disposition.

McKenna v. DeSisto, No. 12-2217 (1st

Cir. June 10, 2013).

No doubt reading the writing on the wall,

he chose not to appeal the dismissal of the second.
In the present action, McKenna has filed a motion seeking an
order temporarily restraining the defendants–-the Chief Justice
of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, an employee of that court, and
the counsel specially retained to investigate and prosecute the
disciplinary proceedings against McKenna–-from holding a meeting
to consider disciplinary counsel’s recommendation that McKenna be
suspended from the practice of law in Rhode Island.
Civ. P. 65(b).

See Fed. R.

As in his previous two actions, McKenna asserts

that the disciplinary proceedings against him violate both the
separation of powers inherent in the Rhode Island constitution
and his rights under the federal constitution, including his
rights under the First Amendment.
The motion is denied.

To obtain a temporary restraining

order, McKenna must demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on
the merits of his claim.

See Brennan v. Wall, No. 08-cv-419,

2009 WL 196204, *2 (D.R.I. Jan. 26, 2009).

McKenna has, however,

made no effort to distinguish this action from his two previous
actions or to otherwise explain why he will be able to surmount
the hurdle presented by Younger, and the court, after careful
consideration, perceives no distinguishing factors.

2

It therefore

appears exceedingly unlikely that McKenna will be able to succeed
in this action.
In view of that shortcoming, moreover, McKenna is directed
to file a memorandum showing cause why the court should not
abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this action under the
Younger doctrine.

The memorandum shall not exceed ten (10)

pages, and shall explain why McKenna believes the court should
not dismiss this dispute for the same reasons set forth in the
orders dismissing his two previous actions, and the Court of
Appeals’ order affirming the dismissal of the first action.

If

McKenna believes that an exception to Younger abstention applies,
he shall clearly and concisely identify that exception, and the
allegations of the complaint that he believes warrant its
application, in the memorandum.
McKenna shall file his memorandum on or before June 27,
2014.

The defendants may (but need not) file a memorandum in

response, also not to exceed ten (10) pages, within seven (7)
days of McKenna’s filing.
SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
June 12, 2014
3

cc:

Samuel A. Kennedy-Smith, Esq.
Keven A. McKenna, Esq.
Michael W. Field, Esq.

4