FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT FEB RUARY 20, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

J udg e B arke tt recuse d herse lf in this case. This opinion is render ed by a quorum 1 of the pa ne l. [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1027 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-20046 -CV -W BH JEFF AL EX AN DE R, JERR Y FREDRICKS ON, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us FL ORI DABA R, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( F eb ru ar y 20 , 200 8) Before AN DE RSO N, Circuit Judge, and T RAG ER ,* D istrict Judg e. 1

____ ____ ____ ____ __ * Honora ble David G. T rag er, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of Ne w York, sitti ngby desig nation.2

PE R CU RIA M:

A ft er or al a rg um en t and c ar ef

ul c onsi de ratio n, w e co nc lud e tha t the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s du e to b e af fi rm ed . O n a

ppe al , the pla int if

fs m ak e onlytwo ar gum ents: (1) that the district court erre d in declinin g to perm it plaintiffs to am en d th ei r co m

pla int to ad d ne wde fe ndants in or de r to avoi d E le ve nth Am endm ent im

m unity ; and (2) that the district court erre d in conclud ing th at pl ai nt iff s’ du e p ro ces s cl ai m

was wi th ou t m eri t. Pl ai nti ff s do not c ha lle nge on a

ppe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s ho ldi ng tha t the St at e Bar is an arm

of the S upr em e Co urt of

F lor ida , a nd the re fo re is pr ote ct ed by the Eleventh A m endm ent im m unity . Rather, plaintiffs argue only that the district co u rterre di n d ec l i n i n g t o p er m i tt h e p l ai n t i ff s t o amen dt h ei r c o m

p l ai n t . We cannot conclud e that the district court erre d. P laintiffs never subm itted a proposed am en dm en t t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt. R athe r, a t the he ar ing on the Bar’ s m oti on t o dis m iss , the pla int if

fs or al ly e xpr es se d th e hope that the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d gr an t leave to am end in order to add appropriate indi vidu als, if the court did no t agree with plaintiffs’ argum ents with respect to the claim against the Bar. T he district co urt de nie d le av e to am en d f or tw o r ea sons : F ir st, the dis tr ic t c ourt i ndi cate d th at , de spi te pla int if

fs ’ a sse rt ion s to the c ontrary , nowhe re in the c om pla int or dur ing3

oral argum ent do the plain tiffs seek a f orm of relief that rem otely

resem bles pr ospe ct ive inj unc tiv e re lie f; se co nd, the c ourt c onc lud ed that any a m en dm en t wou ld be fut il e b ecau se pl ai nt iff s’ du e p ro ces s cl ai m

was wi th ou t m eri t. W e cannot

c onc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w ithr es pe ct

to its f ir st re as on. I n th e pla int if

fs ’ or al r eque st t o a m en d, pla int if f re que ste d on ly

le av e to ad d ne wpart ie s, not

to am en d th e subs tanc e of the r el ie f re que ste d. W e cannot dis ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the r el ie f re que ste d inthe dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t re m ote ly r es em ble pr ospe ct ive inj unc tiv e re lie f. R athe r, pla int if fs w er e ch al le ngi ng the de nia l of

the ir c la im s and s ee kin g ac ourt or de r to f or ce the Bar to p ay

the ir cl ai m s. A t l ea st at so m e poi nts in the ir br ie f on a

ppe al , pla int if

fs pur port t o be disavowing anyeff

ort to seek paym ent of their claim s, but at other points p laintiffs se em to co nti nue to se ek

suc h r etro ac tiv e paym en ts. I n any e ve nt, to the e xte nt pla int if fs do s ee k on ly

pr ospe ct ive r el ie f in the f orm of be tte r pr oc ed

ur es f or the pr oc es sin g of

suc h c la im s by

the Bar, w e de cl ine to en te rt ai n th e cl ai m , be ca use it is m ad e cl earl y

f or the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al , a nd a lso be ca

use pla int if

fs ’ a rg um en t i s vague, fa iling to articulate the for m such better procedures should take. A s no te d, the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso r ej ec te d le av e to am en d, c onc lud ing that anyPlaintiffs do not challeng e the district cour t’s holding that plaintiffs’ equal 2 protec tion claim is withoutmerit. Acc ording ly , we a ddress only plaintiffs’ ar g ument that the district court er

red in c oncludingthat its due proce ss claim is without m erit. 4 such am endm ent would be futile. W e agre e. W e agre e w ith the dis trict court that 2 the plaintiffs’ due process claim is without m erit. T he district court held that pla int if fs ha ve no p ro pe rty

int er es t i n paym en ts f

ro m the Bar fund, a nd p la int if fs do not c ha lle nge that ho ldi ng o n a ppe al . R athe r, pla int if

fs a rg ue , c iti ng F le m

m ing v. N es tor , 363 U . S. 603 , 80 S . Ct . 136 7 ( 1960 ), that the Bar’ s pr oc ed ur es a re so ar bitrary that i ts a ct ion s vi ola te due pr oc es s. W e ne ed not a ddr es s w he the r the due pr oc es s c lause pr ote ct s a ga ins t arb itr ar y a nd c ap ri ci ous gove rn m en ta l a ct s inthe absence of a property

or liberty interest. Even if

such a claim

we re possible, plaintiffs here fa il to articulate clearly in what m anner the Bar ’ s procedures are ar bitrary . Appare ntl y , pla int if fs a rg ue that the pr oc ed

ur es a re a rb itr ar

y be ca use the ru le s pr ovi de that paym en t i s am atte r of gr ac e, a nd n ot a

m atte r of r igh t. W e know of no c as e hol din g th at

the m er e re ci ta tio n th at

paym en t of

be ne fi ts i s am atte r of gr ac e, a nd n ot a

r igh t, r en de rs the pr oc ed ur es unc onst itu tio na lly

a rb itr ar y . T his is es pe ci al ly tr ue in a ca se , suc h a s th is c as e, w he re the re a re w ri tte n pr oc ed ur es a nd cr ite ri a w hic h are r ea sona ble on the ir

f ac e. F or e xa m ple , the state d r ea son fo r the Bar’ s r ej ec tio n of

pla int if fs ’ ini tia l l ette r re que st f

or paym en t – na m el y

the ne ed to ex ha us t o th er av en ue s fo r pa ym en t –is cle arl y reas on ab le .Ap pe lla nts ’ m oti on

to s up ple me nt t

he re c or d o n a

pp e a l is DE NI ED . 3 5 Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIRMED. 3