Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-85-02623/USCOURTS-ca10-85-02623-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Unit.ed States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

EDUARDO LUCERO and ALFONSO CABRAL, } 

} 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, } 

} 

v. } 

} 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR } 

THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO and THE UNITED} 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT } 

OF COLORADO IN BANKRUPTCY, } 

} 

Defendants-Appellees. } 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

FEB 16 1988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 85-2623 

(D.C. No. 85-K-1242} 

(D. Colo.} 

Bef ore LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.S(c} and 

27.1.2. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral 

argument. 

Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their complaint by the 

United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 

Plaintiffs brought suit against the district court and the 

bankruptcy court (defendants} for alleged antitrust and civil 

rights violations. Plaintiffs alleged that the Colorado State 

Board of Law Examiners, the Colorado Supreme Court, and "certain 

Appellate Case: 85-2623 Document: 010110027446 Date Filed: 02/16/1988 Page: 1 
law firms" had conspired to deny admission to the Colorado State 

Bar to certain minorities by manipulating the grading of the state 

bar examination. Plaintiffs did not name these entities as 

parties but alleged discrimination and a "tie-in arrangement" and 

"boycott'' by the defendants through the defendants' use of 

Colorado bar examination results in deciding admission to the 

federal bar in Colorado. 

The district court was correct that the plaintiffs have not 

stated a claim for antitrust violations by the defendants. The 

admission requirements of the federal courts are not subject to 

the antitrust laws. See Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 

422 U.S. 659 (1975) (courts will imply the repeal of antitrust 

laws where necessary to make other statutory provisions effective) 

and Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U.S. 363 

(1973) (where a statute specifically entrusts to another entity 

regulation which would ordinarily have antitrust aspects, the 

courts will not apply an antitrust analysis to the regulation). 

This court also finds no error in the district court's 

conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim that they 

have been denied any right granted to them by the Privileges and 

Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. The 

Privileges and Immunities Clause does not apply to admission 

requirements for the federal bar. Frazier v. Heebe, 788 F.2d 1049 

(5th Cir. 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 107 S. Ct. 2607 (1987). 

Plaintiffs concede that they are not admitted to the Colorado 

State Bar. Indeed, plaintiffs have not alleged that they are 

admitted to any state bar. Nevertheless, plaintiffs argue that 

2 

Appellate Case: 85-2623 Document: 010110027446 Date Filed: 02/16/1988 Page: 2 
due process requires that they be given individual hearings on 

their competence to practice law before the federal courts in the 

State of Colorado. We agree with the district court that this 

argument is without merit. 

Finally, plaintiffs argue that the federal court's use of 

admission to the state bar to determine competence to practice in 

federal court violates plaintiffs' right to equal protection of 

the laws. Plaintiffs argue that this discrimination is racial, 

but we agree with the district court that plaintiffs have alleged 

discrimination only between members and nonmembers of the Colorado 

State Bar. 

Nonmembers of the state bar are not a protected class, nor 

are they a class traditionally subject to mistreatment. Moreover, 

the practice of law is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the 

Constitution. Frazier, 788 F.2d at 1053. Accordingly, the 

defendants' admission requirements need only be scrutinized to 

determine whether there is a rational relationship between the 

requirements and the defendants' reasons for establishing them. 

Id. There is a rational relationship between competence to 

practice in Colorado and competence to practice before the United 

States District Court for the District of Colorado and the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. The 

plaintiffs have therefore failed to state a claim that the 

defendants have denied them equal protection of the laws. 

Finally, plaintiffs argue on appeal that the district court 

judge was personally biased against Chicanos. In support, 

plaintiffs cite cases in which the judge has ruled unfavorably on 

3 

Appellate Case: 85-2623 Document: 010110027446 Date Filed: 02/16/1988 Page: 3 
discrimination charges brought by Chicanos, including plaintiff 

Lucero. Prior unfavorable rulings are not sufficient in 

themselves to support a claim of bias. United States v. Kelley, 

712 F.2d 884 (1st Cir. 1983). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. Appellants' request for oral 

argument is DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 85-2623 Document: 010110027446 Date Filed: 02/16/1988 Page: 4