Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_98-cv-01201/USCOURTS-cand-3_98-cv-01201-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH R GIANNINI,

Applicant. /

No C 98-1201 VRW

ORDER

By application dated December 17, 2010, Joseph R Giannini

applies for leave to file an action regarding attorney admission

requirements in California. Specifically, Giannini seeks

injunctive and declaratory relief invalidating California’s

sister-state bar admission rules and the requirement for passage of

the California bar examination for experienced attorneys. 

Giannini applies for leave to file this action pursuant to a

pre-filing order issued by the court in Paciulan v George,

98-CV-1201 SI. The Paciulan pre-filing order states:

Joseph R Giannini is here by ENJOINED from filing any further

actions, either as an attorney or a party, in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California,

regarding admission to and the regulation of the practice of

law in the State of California without first obtaining leave

of the Chief Judge of this court. If Giannini wishes to file

further actions regarding admission to and the regulation of

practice of law in California, Giannini must attach a copy of

this order to his application for leave to file such actions

Case 3:98-cv-01201-SI Document 106 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

and supply a declaration supporting the application stating:

(1) that the matters asserted in the new action have not

previously been raised by him, as an attorney or a party, and

disposed of on the merits by any court, state or federal; (2)

that the claims are not frivolous or made in bad faith; and

(3) that Giannini has conducted a reasonable investigation of

the facts and certifies that they are accurate. Failure to

comply with any of these conditions shall be sufficient

grounds to deny the application or dismiss the action, and any

violation of this injunction may be treated as contempt of

court.

Paciulan v George, 38 F Supp 2d 1128, 1147 (ND Cal 1998).

Giannini attaches to his application a complete copy of

the court’s pre-filing order in Paciulan and a declaration in

support of his application. Giannini’s declaration fails, however,

to satisfy the requirements of the Paciulan pre-filing order.

The declaration fails to state any new matters that

Giannini has not previously raised as an attorney or a party and

that no state or federal court has disposed of on the merits. See

id. The passage of time and development of the law in unrelated

areas do not alter the decision reached by the Ninth Circuit in

Giannini v Real, 911 F2d 354 (9th Cir 1990) (dismissing Giannini’s

claims and upholding as constitutional the California State Bar’s

attorney admission requirements). There has been no change in fact

or law to create a new, previously-unasserted claim. 

Furthermore, the pre-filing order in Paciulan requires

Giannini to state that his claims are not frivolous or made in bad

faith. See id. Giannini asserts that his new claim is “not

frivolous” and “not presented in bad faith.” Giannini Declaration

at ¶ 16. The record belies Giannini’s assertion. The court denied

Giannini’s application for leave to file an action filed in March

2010 because Giannini’s claims were legally frivolous and filed for

an improper purpose. Doc #98. Similarly, Giannini’s current

Case 3:98-cv-01201-SI Document 106 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

application fails to present new facts or legal claims that would

permit the undersigned to find that the new claim is not legally

frivolous.

For the reasons explained above, the court finds that

Giannini has failed to meet the requirements of the Paciulan

pre-filing order. Giannini’s application for leave to file a

complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief invalidating

California sister-state bar admission rules and the California bar

examination for experiences attorneys is accordingly DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:98-cv-01201-SI Document 106 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 3