Straw, Andrew v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisc.

Filing 32

ORDER denying plaintiff Andrew U. D. Straw's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 25 . Plaintiff's "motion for abolition of my law license," Dkt. 30 , is GRANTED. The clerk's office is instructed to rescind plaintiff's admission and terminate plaintiff's electronic filing credentials. Plaintiff's "motion to take judicial notice of controlling U.S. Supreme Court case finding boycotts to be constitutionally protected," Dkt. 31 , is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 5/4/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ANDREW U. D. STRAW,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN,

17-cv-842-jdp

Defendant.
Pro se plaintiff Andrew U. D. Straw filed a complaint alleging that this court’s reciprocal
suspension of his ability to practice law before it violated his rights under the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. I dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and
denied Straw’s motion for reconsideration. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. See Dkt. 23 and Dkt.
26. Now, Straw has filed a “motion for reconsideration or in the alternative, for permission to
amend the complaint,” Dkt. 25, a “motion for abolition of my law license in the Western
District of Wisconsin,” Dkt. 30, and a “motion to take judicial notice of controlling U.S.
Supreme Court case finding boycotts to be constitutionally protected,” Dkt. 31.
Straw asks that I reconsider my order in light of “the Indiana hearing officer being hired
by the Court of Appeals” for the Seventh Circuit while Straw was appealing the hearing officer’s
decision, which he argues shows that the Indiana Supreme Court’s disciplinary hearing was “a
critically reckless due process violation” and that the Seventh Circuit’s opinions “mean
absolutely nothing.” Dkt. 25, at 7. This factual development does not alter my conclusion that
Straw failed to take advantage of this court’s procedure for challenging the imposition of

reciprocal discipline and therefore failed to state a due process claim against the court. So I will
not reconsider my decision, nor will I allow Straw to amend his complaint.
In his “motion for abolition of my law license,” Straw invokes his “First Amendment
right not to associate with this Court.” Dkt. 30, at 2. He asks that “the court obliterate [his]
license.” Id. at 3. Straw is already ineligible to practice before this court because of the reciprocal
discipline at the heart of this lawsuit, but I will grant his motion and rescind his admission to
the court. I will instruct the clerk’s office to terminate his electronic filing credentials. Should
Straw’s law license be restored, he may reapply for admission to the court. But to be clear, even
if Straw’s license is restored, he must affirmatively reapply for admission to this court before
he makes any filing as a legal representative.
Finally, in Dkt. 31, a “motion to take judicial notice of controlling U.S. Supreme Court
case finding boycotts to be constitutionally protected,” Straw asks me to consider NAACP v.
Clairborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982). I agree that Straw has the right to choose not
to practice in this court. But I had already decided to grant his motion to rescind his admission
before he provided this supplemental authority, so I will deny Straw’s third motion as moot.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Andrew U. D. Straw’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 25, is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s “motion for abolition of my law license,” Dkt. 30, is GRANTED.
3. The clerk’s office is instructed to rescind plaintiff’s admission and terminate
plaintiff’s electronic filing credentials.
4. Plaintiff’s “motion to take judicial notice of controlling U.S. Supreme Court case
finding boycotts to be constitutionally protected,” Dkt. 31, is DENIED as moot.
Entered May 4, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3