Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0838-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sohrab HAROONIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56035
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed June 26, 2017
    Sohrab Haroonian, Pro Se
    Destie Overpeck, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, State Bar of California, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. .
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sohrab Haroonian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising out of his failure to pass the California Bar Exam. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Haroonian’s claims for damages against the State Bar of California and the Committee of Bar Examiners because those defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995) (the State Bar of California is an arm of the state and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Lupert v. Cal. State Bar, 761 F.2d 1325, 1327 (9th Cir. 1985) (suit against the Board of Governors of the California Bar and the Committee of Bar Examiners is barred by the Eleventh Amendment).

The. district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine over Haroonian’s declaratory relief claim because his claim amounted to a “forbidden de facto appeal” of the California Supreme Court’s denial of Haroonian’s application for admission to the state bar. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) (district court lacks jurisdiction over challenge to denial of bar admission, which is a challenge to a state court decision).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.