## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2164 B RY AN J. B R OWN , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. E LI Z AB ET H B OWMAN, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 1:09- cv-346- TLS

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngmann, Judge
.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 20, 2011

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 2, 2012

Befo re C UDAH Y, K ANN E , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . Th i s c a s e i nv o l v e s the sco pe ofthe Rooke r - Feldman doctr i ne and w hetherthe dist ri ct cour t pr oper l y a pp l i ed that doctr ine t o appell ant’ s 4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 983 cl ai m s. In A pri l 20 07, appel l ant Bry an B row n ap p li ed f or a d m issi on to th e I nd iana B ar. A s p art ofhi s a pp l i cati on p ro cess , the I nd i ana Boar d ofLaw Ex am i ners ( BL E) r equeste d that Br own at tend hear i ngs to i nves tiga te hi s a pp l i cati on a nd al so re quir ed Brown to2 N o. 11

- 2164 b e e v a l ua t e d b y me nt a l h e a l th pr o fe s s i o na l s . T he BL E ul t i mat e l y de ni e d B r o wn’ s a dmi s s i o n a pp l i c a t i o n a nd , a ft e r e x h a u s t i n gh i s a p p e a l s to th e In d i a n a S u p r e me C o u r ta n d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C o u r t, B r o wn bro ught sui t in the dist ri ct c ourt
. H i s co m pla i nt, l odged aga i nst v ar i ous s tat e a cto rs i nv olve d i n hi s a pp l i cati on proce ss, al l ege d that the evaluati on of hi s a pp l i cati on f ocuse d on hi s r el i gi ous b el i ef s (ost en sibl y Rom an Cathol i c) and v i ol ate d hi s const i tuti onal ri ghts. The d istr i ct cour t di sm i sse d his com pla i nt witho ut prej ud i ce forl ack of subject m att e r j urisd iction un d er Rooke r - Fe l dm an . T he district cou rt also foun d that the d efend an ts w ere i mmun e fr o m c i v i l s u i t
. O n a p p e a l, B r o wnr a i s e s t wo i ss ue s: ( 1) whethe r the di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n di smi ss i ng his fede ral su it und er Rooke r - Fe l dm an ; a nd ( 2 ) wh e the r th e d istri ct c o urt erred in fi nd ing tha t d efend an ts w ere e n t i t l e d t o i mmun i t y . F o r th e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we affi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s find i ng tha t Rooke r - Fe l dm an ap p li es an d d e c line to asse ss w he th er the d istri ct cou rt was c o r r ec t i n r ul i ngi n the a l te r na ti ve tha t th e defe nd ants w er e i m m une fro m sui t. I nd iana’s con stitut ion p r o v ides that the sta te’s suprem e co urt shall have or i gi nal j uri sdic ti on in adm i ssio n t o th e p ra c tic e of law . I ND . C O NST . ar t. VI I, § 4
. Pur su ant to thi s a uthor i ty, the I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t has ad op ted A d m issi on an d Discip lin e Ru les, w hich govern the pr oce ss ofadm i ssi on t o th e B ar. Rule 9 est abl i shes the Ind i ana Boar d ofLaw Exam i ners ( BL E). T hi s body m ust
re port and c er ti fy to the [ I nd i ana] Suprem e Court that the a pp l i can t, after du e inquir y, has been f ound toN o. 11

- 2164 3 posse ss the necess ar y goo d m or alcharact erand fi tness to p erf or m the obl i gat i ons and res ponsibi l i ti es ofan at to r ne y pr ac ti cingl aw i n the S ta te o fIndi an a, a nd ha s sa ti sfi ed al l g en er alqua l i fi ca ti o ns f o r a dm i ss i o n. Rul e 12 § 1
. In de te r m i ni ngwhethe r an appl i ca nt po ss es se s g o o d m o r alc ha r ac te r a nd fi tn es s, r el ev an t di s qu a l i fy i ngc o ns i de r a t i o ns ma y i nc l ud e , b uta r e n ot lim ite d to th e fo llow in g: unlawfulco nd uct; aca de m i c m i sco nd uct; m aking o f f al se sta tem ents, i ncl ud i ng o m i ssi ons; m i sco n du ct i n e mpl o y men t ; a ct s i nv o l v i ngdi s ho ne s t y, fr a ud , decei t o r m i sr epres entat i on; abuse o fl ega l pro c ess ; negl ec t offi nanci alr esponsibi l i ti es; vi ol ati on o fan or der o fa cour t; evi dence ofm entalo r em oti onal i nstabi l i ty; ev i d en ce o fdrug oral coholdepend ency; denia l o fadm issi on t o the b ari n another j uri sdic ti on on ch aract e r a n d fitness groun d s; an d discip lina ry acti on bya l aw yerdi sci plinaryag ency or o th erpro fes si o na l di sc i pl i na r y a g en cyo fa ny j ur i sdi ct i o n. Rule 12 § 2

. I n acco rdance w i th Rul e 1 2, the BL E m ay re fer an ap pli cant t o the J ud ges and Law yer s Assi sta nce Pr ogram (JLA P) for evalu ation. Ru le 31 §8(c). T h e JL A P is d es ign ed to “a ss istim p air ed m em b er s in re cove ry ; to e d ucate the b ench and bar ; and to r educe th e p oten ti alha r m c au se d b y i m pai r m en t to the i nd i vi du al, the pu bl i c, the profess i on, and the l ega l sy stem
. ” JLA P G uid elines § 2
. J LAP i s a dmi ni s t e re d by a com m i tte e, wh i ch pro vi des as sis tance to j ud ges , l awy er s an d l aw st ud en ts who a r e i m pai r ed by, a m o ng o th erthi ng s, me ntalhe al thpr o bl ems. The J udg es a nd4 N o. 11

- 2164 Law yer s A ssi sta nce Com m i tte e ( J LA C ) co m p ri ses q u a l i fi e d p e r s o n n e l a p p r o v e d b y th e In d i a n a S u p r e me C ou rt. On requ est, th e c o m m ittee w il l issue a rep ort of evaluations m ad e by its app roved healthpro v iders f o r th e u s e o f th e B L E i n r e v i e win g a b a r a d mi s s i o n a ppl i ca ti o n. Bas ed o n an appl i cati on, hear i ngs a nd ev al uati ons, th e B L E m u s t m ake a d eterm ination as to an ap p li can t’s a d mi s s i o n t o th e B a r . I fth e B L E fi n d s th a ta n a p p l i ca nt i s no t e l i gible for ad m i ssi on, the appli cant m ay re quest a he ar i ng( wher e th e appl i ca ntha s r i gh ts ofs ubpo en a an d exam i na ti o n o fwi tn es se s)

. Rul e 12 § 9 ( e) & ( f )

. I fthe BL E confi rm s i ts deci si on t o deny the appli cant a dm i ss i o n, i tmus ti s s ue a “ fi na l r e po r to fthe p r o c e e di ngs, i n c l u d i n gs p e c i fi c fi n d i n g s o ff a c t, c o n c l u s i o n a n d r e c o mm endati ons. ” Rul e 1 2 § 9( h). The appli cant m ay appeal to the I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t. Rule 14 § 2. The on ly cour t in w hi ch the appli cant c an then see k further r e v i e w i s the S up r e me Co ur t o fthe Uni t e d S t a t e s . 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 257. I n A p r i l 2 0 0 7, B r o wns o u g h ta d mi s s i o n t o th e In d i a na Bar
. Onthe b a s i s o fh i s a pp l i c a t i o n, the BL E r e qu e s t e d a h e a r i ng . Aft e r th e h e a r i n g, th e B L E r e fe r r e d h i m t o J L AP for ev alu at ion
. See R u le 3 1 § 8(c ). D efe n d an t T im Sudrov ech, the Cli ni calDirec to r ofJ LA P, r efer re d Brown to ps ychol ogi st St ephen Ross, al so a defendant. Ross me twi th Br o wn t wi c e o v e r the c o ur s e o fs eve ra l m o nths a nd pe r f o r m ed th r ee ps y ch o l o g i ca l e xa m i na ti o ns o n hi m . Bas ed o n th i s, Ro ss i ss ue d a r epo r t not i ng th e po ssibil ity ofa su b-cli nical bipolar disord er of aN o. 11

- 2164 5

D e sp ite this d en ial, Bro w n w en t ah ead an d m et w ith h is 1 choic e, D r. B ryan Flueckiger, w ho is sued a report on M ay 1, 2009 s tat ing that Brow n sat is fie d the re quirem ents ofRu le 12 and r ec om m en d ed thathe be pe rm i t t ed t o s i tf or the I ndi ana bar e xa m i nat i on. h yp om an ic t yp e b u t c on c lu d in g t h at n o t h in g s h ou ld precl ud e Bro w n’s appli cati on fro m go i ng f or w ard

. Order 4. Ross al so op in ed that Brown ’ s “ i nter perso nal styl e” war r an te d fur th erc o ns i der at i o n b y a psych i at r i sta nd a p s y c hi a t r i c i nt e r v i e w wa s a r r a ng e d. Brown then w ro te tw o l ett er s t o defe nd ant Ros s r equ e s t in g him to chan ge his rep ort. T he se letters ex pr es se d Br o wn’ s co nc erns r eg ar di ngthe po l i ti ca l a nd r el i g i o us c o nt en t o fRo ss ’ s que st i o ns , que st i o ne d the sci enti fi c va lid ity o fthe tes ts used and disa gr eed with R os s’s su gg es tio n th at h e un d er go fu rt h e r p sy c h iat ric evaluati on f or a p oss ibl e bi pol ardi sor der. Bro w n l ate r sen t ano th er l etter to d efend an t s S ud rovech and Terry H ar re l l, Executi ve Dir ecto r ofJ LA P. Thi s l ett eral so r ai se d c o nc erns abo utthe e va l ua ti o n pr o ce ss a nd re quested an i nd ependent re vi ew of hi s case by “st ate offic er s t ra in ed in c on st itu tio n al a n d civ il rig h ts law .” O rd er 5. Th e fol low ing d ay, B r o w n requ ested permi ss i o n t o b e e v a l u a t e d b y a p s y c h i a t r i s to fh i s o wn choos i ng. S ud ro vech deni ed th is re quest s tat i ng tha t evaluati ons w er e t o be pr ovi ded bya psychi atr i st f ro m the J LAP p r o v i de r s l i st. Id. Bro w n eve ntual l y a cquie sced 1 to Sudrov ech’ s r equ es t that he see a J LA P-a pp ro ved ps yc h iat ris t an d s c h ed u led a n appoi ntm ent with Dr. El i zabeth B owm an, wh o i s a l so a defendant her e.6 N o. 11

- 2164

D r. Bo w m an ’ s rep or t spe cifically stated tha t B ro w n “ fi r m ly 2 b eliev es he is o b liga ted as a C hr istian to p u t ob ed ienc e to G od ’ s laws abov e hum an laws. ” D r. Bow m an further noted that Brown e xpr es s ed “ deva l ui ng a t t i t udes t owards pha rm ac ol ogica l orps yc ho- the ra peut i c m en t al he al th t re at m en t ” a nd tha t h e m ad e “sar castic rem ark s d ev alu ing au tho rity of all t ypes , es pec i al l y m en t al he al th a uthor i t y a nd the abo rt i on in d u str y .” Id. Bo wm an ’ s ev al ua ti o n o fB rown i nv o l ve d hi s vi si ting D r. W illiam A lex y, w h o c on d u c te d a p sy c h olo gic al e x am ina ti o n o fBr o wn. On th e ba si s o fs ev er ali nt er ac ti o ns w i th Bro w n, defendant Bow m an subse quentl y i ssued a r epor t, i n w hi ch she concl ud ed that Brown suffer ed f r o m a p e r s o na l i t y di s o rder , n o to the r wi s e s pe c i fi e d. 2 Order 6

. Inres p on se to B ow m an ’s re p or t, B ro w n se n t m u ltip le l et te r s to the BLE ag ain expr es singhi s co nc erns abo utthe J LA P and BL E pr oce ss, and the re l i gi ous casto fhi s e val uations by D rs. B ow m an and Ro ss. B row n m ad e m ore th a n s i x t yc o mpl a i n t s t o th e J L AP a n d BLE a b o u tB o wm an’ s o pini on a nd r equeste d a ci vi l r i ghts i nvest i gati on. S ud ro vech, afterr evie w i ng Bowm an’ s r epor t, pre pa r e d a r e po r to n b e ha l fo fJ LAP t o a s s i s tthe BL E i n mak i ngi ts fi na l de ci si o n o n Br o wn’ s ba r a ppl i ca ti o n. I n a l ett erdated Februar y 1 1, 20 09, the BL E noti fi ed Br o wn th athe woul d no t be a dm i tt ed to the Indi an a b ar b ecause he was unabl e t o dem onst ra te goo d m or al ch ar ac te r a nd fi tn es s unde r A d m i ss i o n a nd Di sc i pl i ne Ru l e 1 2
. P ur s ua ntt o R ul e 1 2 § 7, Br o wn r e qu e s t e d aN o. 11

- 2164 7 h e a r i n g w i th th e B L E
. P r i o r t o th e h e a r i n gB r o wn r e qu e s t e d a mor e de fi ni t e s t a t e men t a s t o whyhi s a ppli cati on had bee n denie d. The BL E al so obt ai ned certain other inform ation relating to a discip lin ary acti on a gain st B ro w n i n K ansas ( w here he ha d been adm itt ed to the bar ) , the fullr esul ts ofBro w n’s psycho

l o g i ca l a nd ps y ch i at r i c ev al ua ti o ns a nd hi s vo l um i no us co r r es po nd en ce wi thJ LA P a nd wi thhi s ch ar ac te r a nd fi tn ess eva luator. At the he ar i ng, Br o wn ca l l ed no w i tn es se s but su bm itted Bow m an ’s r e p ort. H e argu ed that Bow m an ’s r el i g i o us b el i ef s r en der ed he r i nc apab l e o fe va l ua ting hi m o bj ecti vel y. A fterthe hear in g, Brown fi l ed sev er al m ot i ons and sought re consi derat i on o fhi s a pp l i cati on den i ala nd a n inde pen dent ci vi l r i g ht s i nv es ti g at i o n. The BL E i ssued a repor t with i ts f actualand l ega l f i n d i n g s a n d a r e c o mme n d a t i o n th a t B r o wn n o t b e a dm i tt ed to the Indi an a ba r . Br o wn th ena ppea l ed to the I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t. On Nov embe r 1 6, 2 00 9, the co ur t i ss ue d a n o r ders ta tingtha t “[a]f terr ev i ew o fthe subm i ssi ons ofthe parti es, i t i s th e Court’ s dete rm i nati on that the BLE ’ s deci si on sh ou ld stand. ” In reBar Appl i ca nt24 128 , N o. 94 S00

- 0910

- BL

- 446, at 1 ( I nd

. N ov. 16 2 0 0 9 ). Th ereafter, th e U nited States Su p rem e C ou rt d en ied B ro w n ’s p et itio n for c er tio ra ri. O n D ecem ber 8, 2009 , Brow n fil ed suit in district cou rt al l eg i ngt wenty - si x c o unts of fede r ala nd s ta te c o ns ti tu
ti onal, st ate statutoryand com m on l aw vi ol ati ons. B r o wn na m ed a s d e fe n d a n t s i n h i s fe d e r a l s u i tD r s . B o wm an and Ross , H ar re l l, ind ivi du al l y a nd i n hero ffi ci al8 N o. 11

- 2164

ca pac i tya s Exe cut i ve Di r ec to r o fthe J LA P, S udr o ve ch, i nd i vi du al l y a nd i n hi s o ffi ci alcapaci ty as C l i ni cal Dir ecto r ofJ LA P, RandallS hepard, i n hi s o ffi ci al cap acity as C hief J us tice of th e In d ian a Sup rem e C ou rt an d J o hn Doe s an d J an e Ro es a s co-con spi r at o r s. The bul k o fBro w n’s § 1983 co m pla i nt al l ege d var i ous v i ol ati ons ofthe Fi rs t Am endm en t: fi ve counts und erthe Fr ee Speech Clau se; thr ee counts und erthe Fr ee Ex er ci se Clause ; two co unts under the Estab l i shm ent Cl ause; and one co unt und erthe A sse m bl y Cl ause. Fo ur o ther co unt s al l eg ed vi o l at i o n o fBr o wn’ s Due Pro ce ss a nd Equa l P r o t e c t i o n r i g ht s u nd e r the F o ur t e e nth Am e nd

m en t. The r emai ni ngc o unt s al l eg ed vi olat i o n o fv ar i o us st ate com m o n l aw r equi r ement s, s ta tu te s an d c o ns ti tu
ti onalpro vi si ons. Defen dan ts move d t o di smi ss Br o wn’ s co m pl aint ci ti ng l a c k o f s ubj e c t mat t e r j ur i s di c t i o n, l a c k o f j us ti ci ab i l i tya nd v ar i ous i m m uni tyde fen se s. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an ted th e m o ti o ns t o di smi ss , fi ndi ng th at B row n’s civilri gh ts claim s w ere barred un d er R o o k erFe l dm an bec au se they were i nextri cabl y inter tw i ned w i th the Ind i ana S up rem e C ourt ’ s a dj ud i cati on o f Brow n ’s barappli cati on a nd fi nd i ng tha t Bro w n’s as appli ed chal l enges to A dm i ssi on a nd Dis ci pline Rul es 19 and 2 3 w er e unri pe and di d no t prese nt a case orco ntro
v e r s y . F i na l l y, the di s t r i ct co ur tc o nc l ud e d tha tS he pa r d, th e S upr eme Co ur t defen dan t, was abs ol ut ely i m m une und erthe Ele venth Am endm ent an d that defendants Ross , Bo wm a n a nd S ud r o v e c h we r e e nt i t l e d t o ab s o l ute w i tness i m m unity.N o. 11

- 2164 9 B r o wnr a i s e s t wo i s s u e s o n a pp e a l

. F i r s t, h e c l a i ms the di str i ct c ourte rred i n fi nd i ng tha t the Rooke r - Fe l dm an ab s t e n t i o n d o c t r i n e b a r r e d th e a c t i o n . S e c o n d , h e c l a i ms er ro r i n the fi nd i ng that Sudrov ech, Bow m an and Ross w er e abso l utel y i m m une fro m sui t.

I. O u r revi ew o fa deter m i nati on o fsubj ect m att erj uri sdict i on ba sed o n the Rooke r - Fe l dm an do c t r i ne i s deno vo . Taylor v. Fe d. Nat’l M ortg. Ass’ n , 374 F
. 3d 529, 5 32 ( 7th C ir. 20 04 ). Roo ke r - Fe l dm an “pre vents the l ower federa l cour ts f ro m exer ci si ng j uri sdic ti on o vercas es bro ught by

‘ sta te- cour t l ose rs ’ chal l enging ‘ sta te- cour t j ud gm ents r e n d e r e d b e f o r e th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp r o c e e d i n g s c o mm enced. ’ ” Lance v. D ennis , 54 6 U. S

. 45 9, 46 0 ( 20 06 ) ( quo ting Exxon M ob i l Corp
. v. Sau di Basi c Indu s. C o rp., 544 U
. S. 28 0 ( 2005 ) )

. The reas on, qui te si m ply, i s that no m att er how er ro neous orun c on sti tuti onalthe sta te cour t j ud gm ent m ay be, o nl y th e Suprem e Cour t o fthe U ni ted St at es h as j u ris d ict ion t o re vie w it. B rok a w v. Weav er, 30 5 F.3d 660 , 664 (7th C ir. 2002). Rooke r - Fe l dm an bar s federa l cl ai m s in two i nstance s. The firs t i nvol ves a pl ai nti ff’ s r equest ofa federa l di str i ct co ur t to o ve r tu r n a n adv er se s ta te c o ur t j udg m en t. The seco nd , and m or e di ffi cul t instance , i nvol ves fed eral cl ai m s th at w er e no t r ai sed i n sta te cour t o r do not on th ei r f ac e r equi r e r ev i ew o fa stat e co ur t’ s dec i si o n. Ta yl or, 374 F.3d at53 2-3 3. Inth is lat te r in st an c e, R o o k erF e l dm an wi l l a c ta s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a r i fth o s e c l a i ms10 N o. 11

- 2164

ar e “ i nextri cabl y inter tw i ned ” w i th a sta te cour t j ud gm en t. Id. at 53 3. T h o u gh so m et im es u n d er st an d ab ly l ab el ed a “met aph y si ca l con ce pt, ” th e th r us t o fthe “ i ne xtr i cabl y inter tw i ned” i nquir y a sk s w hether“the di str i ct cour t i s in ess ence bei ng ca l l ed upon to re vi ew the sta tecour t deci si on. ” Id. ; see also Young v. M urphy, 90 F. 3d 1225 , 1231 ( 7th Cir. 1996) (“[ C ]onstitu tional clai m s tha t are

‘ i nextri cably inter tw i ned’ with sta te cour t j ud gm ents of necess i ty cal l upon the dist ri ct c ourtto r evie w t h e stat e cou rt de cision and are thu s beyon d the d istri ct cou rt’s j urisd i cti on. ”)

. The deter m i nati on o fwh ethera federa l cl ai m i s “ i nextri cabl y inter tw i ned” hi nges on wh ether i t al l eg es tha t th e su ppo se d i nj ur y was cause d b y the st at e co ur t j udg m en t, o r, a l te r na ti ve l y, w hethe r the f ede r a l c l a i m a l l e g e s a n i nd e pe nd e ntp r i o r i nj ur y tha t th e s ta te co u rtfailed to rem ed y. Se e Lon g v. Sh o reb ank D ev. C o rp., 18 2 F
. 3d 548, 55 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)

. A n al l ege d inj ury i s “i nd ependent” i f the sta te cour t w as actin g in a no n-j ud ici alc apa ci tywheni t affec te d the pl aintif f

— f o r e xa m pl e, i fthe s ta te c o ur t was “ pr o m ul g at i ng rul es re gul ati ng the bar

. ” Ed w ar ds v. Il l

. Bd. of Adm is s i ons t o Bar, 261 F.3d 723 , 729 (7th C ir. 2001). B ut find ing th a t a fed eral cl aim i s inex tricably i nt ertwi ne d wi tha s ta te c o ur t j udg m en t do es no t en d the in q u i r y . O n c e itis d et er m in ed th at a c laim is i nextri cabl y intertw ined, we m ust then i nquir e whether “the pl aint i ff [ di d o r ] di d no t ha ve a r ea so nable oppor tu
n ity to rais e t h e is su e in st at e c ou rtp ro c ee d in gs .” Br okaw, 30 5 F
. 3d at 667 ( ci ti ng Lon g, 1 82 F
. 3d at55 8)

. I fthe pl aint i ffc o ul d ha ve r ai se d the i ss ue i n s ta te c o ur t, the claim i s barred un d er Rooke r - Fe l dm an .N o. 11

- 2164 11 On app eal, appel l ant a rgu es that hi s federa l sui t doe s not “run a g r o u n d up on th e narrow shoa ls of R o o k erFe l dm an ” be ca us e i t is not c al cul at ed to o ve r tu r n the I nd i ana S up re m e Court’ s fin al j ud gm ent. True, appell ant’ s com pla i nt does not expli ci tl y re quest a lo w er fede ral cou rt to overtu rn an i nc ons iste nt state cou rt j ud gm ent, but that i s no t the onlyci rcum sta nce in w hi ch Rooke r - Fe l dm an ap p li es. The ke y quest i on i s whether Brown ’ s ci vi l r i ghts cl ai m s invol vi ng the pro cess by w h ich h is ap p lica tio n w as ev alu at ed ar e s o in e x tr ica b ly i nter tw i ned w i th the Ind ian a Suprem e Cour t’ s a dj ud i cati on o fhi s Barappli cati on that in pract i cale ffect a l ower federa l co urt w oul d be r equi re d to revie w a sta te co ur t dec i si o n. W e addr es se d a s i m i l arque st i o n in Edwa r ds v . Il l i n oi s Boardof Adm i s s i ons t o Bar, 261 F.3d 723 ( 7 t h C ir. 2001), i n w hi ch an I l l i noi s ba r appli cant w ho was deni ed adm i ss i o n b r o ughts ui ti n fe de r a l c o ur tc l a i mi ngtha t h e r a ppli cati on proce ss vi ol ate d the A m er i cans with Dis abi l i ti es A c t (A D A ). Id

. at 725. Like app ell an t here, the p lai nt iff str ess ed that she was notse ek in g rev er salo fthe deci si on to d en y h er ad m iss ion to th e b ar . Id

. at 7 2 6 . Ra th er, she c l ai m ed that re quir i ng the r el eas e o fherm edi cal r ec o r ds as pa r t o fthe a dm i ss i o n p roces s vi o l at ed th e A D A
. Id

. In r e s po ns e , we s t a t e d: W hi l e s he m i ght no t be as ki ng us to re vie w t he st ate co u r to r d e r d e c l i n i n gc e r t i fi c a t i o n, g r a n t i n gt he rel i ef she re quests w oul d hav e that effect: sh e is asking for a rem an d s o t h e district cou rt m ay d eterm in e w h et h er th e C om m itt ee vio lat ed th e A D A in12 N o. 11

- 2164
tr e a t i n g [ p l a i n t i ff’ s ] d e c i s i o n n o t t o r e l e a s e t he r e c o r ds a s i tdi d. Id

. at731 . E dw ar ds’ federa l cl ai m i nvol ves not a di re ct ch al l en g e to a b arr ul e, b utr athera c ha l l en g e to the m an n e r i n wh i c h th e C o mmi t t e e t r e a t e d h e r a p p l i c a t i o n. Thi s, we sai d , “ is pr ec i se l y the ty pe o fc l ai m tha t th e Roo k er-Fe l dm an doctr i ne bar s the l ower federa l co urts f ro m co nsi deri ng be cause i t r equi re s r evi ew o fa sta te cou r t de c i s i o n i n a pa r t i c ul a r c a s e tha t a r o s e o ut o f j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ” Id. at 730. H er e, appell ant’ s a rt ful ple adingcannotge t him a r o un d Rooke r - Fe l dm an whe n th e g r a v a me n o fh i s c o mpla i nt r eq uir es the di str i ct c ourtto r evi ew the sta te j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g . In E dw ar ds , the pla i nti ffcl ai m ed that th e pr o c e s s b y whi c h the s t a t e a c t o r s a s s e s s e d he r bar a p p li cation s viol ated her con stitut ional ri gh ts. H ere t o o , Br o wn c ha l l e ng e s the “ man ne r i n whi c h the [ BLE ] tr ea te d hi s appl i ca ti o n. ” The S upr eme Co ur t ha s f o und su ch clai m s barred un d er Rooke r - Fe l dm an : I fthe const i tuti onalcl ai m s pre sente d to a Un i ted St ate s Dist ri ct Court ar e i nextri cabl y i n tertwined wi ththe s ta te c o ur t’ s den i ali n a j udi ci alpr o ce eding ofa parti c u lar p l ai nti ff’ s a pp l i cati on f oradm i ssi on t o the sta te bar, then the Dist ri ct Court i s i n es se nce be i ng c all ed upo n t o r ev i ew the s ta te c o ur t dec i si o n. This the Di str i ct Cour t m ay not do. D ist. of C o lum bia C o urt o f A pp eal s v. Feld m a n, 460 U
. S. 46 2, 48 3 n .16 (19 83 ). Th ou gh B ro w n foc u se s m u c h of h is appea l o n the al l ege dlyr el i gi ousl y b i ase d JLA P eva l uati o ns a nd the c o nduc t o fJ L AC mem be r s, the se a ct i o nsN o. 11

- 2164 13

a r e i n t i ma t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i th th e In d i a n a S u p r e me Court’ s adj ud i cati on. H er e, the I nd i ana Suprem e C ou rt, thro ugh i ts age nt the BLE , com m i ssi oned the J LA C to a s s i s ti ti n p r o c e s s i n gB r o wn ’ s ad mi s s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n . We agree w ith th e d istri ct cou rt that“review ing t h e JLA C ’s act ion s i n thi s co ntext woul d requi re [ the di str i ct c ourt ] to con side r the Ind ia n a S up rem e C ou rt’s proce ss of r eferring case s to the J LA C, re vi ew i ng how the J LA C’s i nfo rm ati o n i s ut i l i ze d b y the BLE, a nd final l y r ev i ewi ngthe I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t’ s ul ti m ate r es ol uti on in the case ofan ind i vi du alse eking a dm i ssi on t o the b ar . ” Order15
. Because Br own ’ s cl ai m s o fr el i gi ous b i as re quir e a fed er al d ist ric t c ou rtto rev iew th e j u d icia l p ro c es s fo ll o wed b y the Indi an a S upr eme Co ur t i n de ci di ngthe m erits of B r ow n’s bar ad m issi on ap p li cation, Brow n’s c laim s a re “in ex tr ica b ly in te rt w in ed ” a n d fall sq u ar ely un d er Rooke r - Fe l dm an ’s j urisd ictional bar. F u r th e r, a s i mpl e r e a d i n go fB r o wn’ s c o mpl a i n ts h o ws th at his reli gious d iscrim ination claim s in distr ic t cou rt ar e es se nt i al l y the s ame a r g um en ts he m ad e to the I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t. W hen a barappli cant ha s a n o ppo r tu ni tyb efo r e a st at e co ur t to r ai se a l l eg ed er rors o fl a w a n d f a c t s i n v o l v i n gh i s a d mi s s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n, th ata ppl i ca nti s ba r r ed f r o m s ubs eque nt l y r ai si ng s i mi l a r c l a i ms i n a n y fe d e r a l c o u r tb u tth e S u p r e me C ou rt
. Hale v. Com m . on Charac t e r& Fi t ne s s f orSt at eof Il l. , 3 3 5 F
. 3 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 )

. I n H ale, w e a ga in ad d ressed the ap p li cab il ity of Rooke r - Fe l dm an to an ag g r i e v e d b a r a p p l i c a n t ’ s fe d e r a l c l a i ms . T h e r e , the appl i ca nt al l eg ed va r i o us co ns ti tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o ns b efo re th e Illino is Su p re m e C o u rt, an d th at co u rt, in14 N o. 11

- 2164 affir m in g t h e a dj u d ica tin g c om m itt ee ’s a d m iss ion d ec isi on, r ejec ted tho se ar gum ents. The appli cant then br o ug hta fede r als ui t m ak i ng m an y ofthe s ame c o nte nt i o ns o f r el i g i o us bi as as he ha d m ade be f ore the state su p rem e cou rt. B ecau se th e I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt had the p ow er to hearco nsti tuti onalcl ai m s, and i n f act the a pp l i cant ha d rai sed such cl aim s th er e, we affi rm ed a di smi ss alo fthe a ct i o n un d er Rooke r - Fe l dm an . Hale, 335 F. 3d at68 3 ( ci ti ng In reAnas t apl o, 12 1 N
. E.2 d 826, 82 8 (Ill. 19 54 ) (Ill in ois Su p re m e C ou rtres olv es p et itioner’s con stitu t io na l ch all en ge to the Com m ittee’s d ecision to rej ect h is bar app li cation ))

. Li k e th e appl i cant in Hale, Bro w n had an oppor tuni ty to ra i se fe deralco nsti tuti onalcl ai m s be f or e a st ate co ur t wi th po wer to adj udi ca te th em. Thus, I nd i an a A dm i ssi ons and D i scipl i ne Rul e 1 4 § 2 provi des thatan appli cant a ggr i eve d by the fi nal act i on of the BLE m ay “fi l e a p et iti on with the Suprem e Cour t o fInd i ana r equesti ng re vi ew by [ the] Court of such fi n al d ete rm i nati on, and set ti ng f or th speci fi cal l y therein t h e r eas ons, i n f act or l aw , ass i gned as er ro r i n the [ BL E’s ] d et erm i natio n . . . . [T ]h e C ou rtsh all e n t e r s u c h o rd er as in i t s j ud g me n ti s p r o p e r, w h i c h s h a l l th e r e u p o n b e c o me fi na l

. ” Rul e 14 § 2
. Br o wn d id cl ai m b efo r e th e I ndi an a Suprem e Cour t that he had suffer ed unconsti tuti onal disc ri m i nati on. A s its o rderi nd i cate s, thatco urt “car efull y review ed ” the se con ten tions an d ultim ately de termi ne d tha t the y di d no t mer i t r e v e r s a l o f the BLE’s a dm i ss i o n de te r m i na ti o n. Be ca us e Br o wn i s at te m pting t o r a i s e s i mi l a r v i o l a t i o ns h e r e , h i s c l a i ms a r e b a r r e d.N o. 11

- 2164 15

The appe l l antf or m ul at ed the i s s ue on appeal as : “Di d the 3 Di s t r i c t Co ur t e r r i n e x t e nd i ng a bs ol ut e i m m un i t y to put a t i ve ex per twi tn e s s e s wh o we r e n o ts u b j e c t e d t o th e c r u c ib l e of the j udi c i alpr oc es s ? ” As w e re ad i t, Bro wn l i m i t s hi s ar gum en t s onthe i m m uni t y i s s ue t o de fen dant s Su drove c h, Ross and Bo wm an, who e ac h i s s ued e xpe rtr epo rt s i n c onn ec t i on t o Br ow n’s bar adm i s s i on appl i c at i on. Acc or di ngl y, we t oo lim it ou r rev iew on ap p eal to tho se thre e d efend an ts. T hou ghap p ell an t insists tha t he d oes not requ est reversa l o fthe Indi an a S upr eme Co ur t’ s admi ss i o n deci si o n, the c ast i ng of a c om pla i nt in the f or m o fa ci vi l r i ghts acti on, howeverar tful, cannotcircu m vent R o o k erFe l dm an . Th e civilri gh ts claim s are “inex tricably i nt ertwi ne d” wi th( an d wer e di r ec tly r es o l ve d b y ) the Indi an a Suprem e Cour t’ s a dj ud i cati on o fhi s a dm i ssi on a pp l i cati o n. W e th er efo r e affi r m th e di smi ss al o f hi s con st i tu
tional clai m s un d er Rooke r - Fe l dm an .
II. B row n raises a secon d i ssu e o f w he th er the d istri ct cou rt er r ed i n fi ndi ngtha t defenda nt s Bo wm an, Ro ss a nd Sudrov ech ar e e nti tl ed t o abso l ute i m m unity. A l though 3 i t i s no t nec ess ar y t o deci de thi s i ss u e, beca use i t was d et er m in ed b y t h e d ist ric t c ou rtan d rais ed on ap p ea l, w e be l i eve i t ap p ropri ate to di scuss i t br i efl y. In that re gar d, i n deter m i ni ng wh ethera go ver nm ent o ffi ci al i s e nti tl ed to im m unity, thi s Courtappli es a “ functi onal approach. ” Aur i e m m a v. M ontgom e ry , 860 F. 2d 273, 27 5 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 8)

. Tha t i s, we l o o kt o “ th e na tu r e o fthe16 N o. 11

- 2164 func ti o n pe r f o r m ed, no t t he i den ti tyo fthe a ct o r who perf or m ed i t. ” B uc k ley v . Fitz sim m o ns, 50 9 U.S

. 25 9, 269 ( 1993 ) ( ci ti ng Fo rrester v. Whit e, 484 U
. S. 219, 229 (1 9 8 8)). Cont r a r y t o a pp e l l a nt ’ s c o nt e nt i o n, wi tne s s i mm un i ty i s n otlim ite d to in-c ou rtte st im on y. Wil son v. Kelkhoff , 86 F.3d 143 8, 1 4 4 3 -44 (7th C ir. 1996) (prisoner review board m em b er s e n t i t l ed to w itn es s im m u n ity ); Cre ns haw v. B a yn erd, 180 F.3d 866 , 868 (7th C ir. 1999) (com m issi one rs o fIndi an a Ci vi l Ri g ht s C om m i ss i o n e nt i tl ed to i m m unity). A s c ou rt-app ointed exp erts requ ested to prep are r epo r ts i n c o nne ct i o n wi tha j udi ci alpr o ce eding , de fen dan t s S ud r o v e c h, Bo wm a n a nd R o s s a r e l i k e l y e nt i tl ed to the abso l ute i m m unity t ra dit i onal l y pr ovi ded to witn e s s e s a tc o mmo n l a w. Ross, Bow m an and Sudro vech’ s a cti ons i n t h is c ase ar e m at er i al l y s i m i l art o tho se of othe r g o ve r nm en t offi ci al s t o w h om w e hav e a ccor ded witnes s i m m unity. I n C o o ney v. R o ssiter, 5 8 3 F
. 3d 9 6 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) , we e xp l a i ne d tha tc o ur t
- a pp o i nt e d e xp e r t s , l i k e c hi l d gua r di ans, ar e
ar m s o fthe c o ur t, much l i k e speci almast er s, a nd deser ve prot ecti on f ro m har ass m ent b y di sappoi nted l i ti g an ts , j us t as j udg es do

. Expe r ts as k ed bythe co ur t to a dvi se o n wha t dispos i ti o n wi l l s er ve the besti nt e r e s t s o fa c hi l d in a c us t o dy p r o c e e di ngn e ed ab so lu te im m u n ity in o rd er to be ab le t o fu lfill thei r obl i gat i ons “w i thout the worr y o fi nt im id atio n an d h ar as sm en t fro m d iss at isfie d p ar e n t s.” T h is pri nci ple i s a p p li cabl e t o a chi l d’s re prese ntati ve, who al th o ug h b o und t o c o ns ul t th e ch i l d i s no t bo undN o. 11

- 2164 17 by the c hi l d’s w i shes but r atherby t h e c hi l d’s best i nter ests, an d is thus a neutra l, m uch l i ke a co urtappoint ed expertwitnes s. Id. a t 97 0 ( i nt erna l c i ta ti o ns om itted )

. M uchl i k e th e ex per t wi tn es se s i n C o o ney, th e s e d e fe n d a n t s w e r e c o mm i ss i o ne d b y the Indi an a S upr eme Co ur t to i ss ue obj ecti ve and neutralr epor ts on Bro w n’s m en ta l heal th an d fi tn es s f o r th e I ndi an a Bar
. The BLE an d Indi an a S upr eme Co ur t r el i ed o n the se r epo r ts i n de ny i ng B ro w n ’s a d m iss ion t o t h e ba r. A s s ta te ac to rs int im at ely connect ed w i th the BLE j ud i ci alpro cess , defendants, l i k e th e ch i l d g ua r di an s i n C o o ney, ar e a l m ostcer tai n ly enti tl ed to i m m unity in or der t o preserve the autho ri ty ofthei r evaluati ons. Brown ’ s co m pla i nt does notal l ege tha t defendants engag ed i n conduct bey ond the s cope o fthei r cour ta p p o i n t e d d u t i e s . R a th e r, a l l o fth e c o n d u c tB r o wn al l eg es i nv o l ve a c o ns pi r ac y t o de pr i ve hi m o fhi s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts and w er e t ake n pur suant t o thos e defendants’ cour t- appoint ed du ti es. N or ar e w e p ersuaded that the b arad m i ssi on pro cess l acks adequate proce dur als afegua r ds o fwhi cha di sa ppo i nt ed appl i ca nt m ay avai l hi m sel f

. Bro w n had the o pp ortuni ty to re quest a hear i ng be f or e th e BLE atwh i ch he c oul d subpo e na a nd e xa mi ne wi tne s s e s . R ul e 1 2 § 9 ( e) & (f )

. Appl i ca nt s th ata r e ul ti m at el y de ni ed admi ss i o n b y the B L E c a n a l s o fi l e a pe t i t i o n t o th e In d i a n a S u p r e me Court al l eging err or s oflaw orfactby the BL E. Rule 14 § 2. Th e s e me c ha ni s ms o fr e v i e w pr o v i de a mpl e s a fe g ua r ds to prot ect Brown ’ s due pro cess r i ghts. Because defend a nt s w ere “p art an d pa rcel” of an adj ud icatory18 N o. 11

- 2164 proce ss conta i ni ng adequate proce du ra l sa feguar ds, Wi l s on , 86 F. 3d at 14 44, the defe nd ants ar e l i kel y e nti tl ed to the abso l ute i m m unity t ra dit i onal l y a ccor ded to witnesse s in connect i on with the j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. Fi nal l y, we note that defendant Sudro vech i s a l so l i k ely e nt i tl ed to i m m uni tyunde r the Adm i ssi ons a nd D i s c i p l i n e R u l e s . R u l e 31 § 1 0 p r o v i d e s th a t“ [ th e ] C o mm i tte e, Executi ve Dir ecto r, staff, and volunteer s a re not subj ect to ci vi l sui t foro ffi ci ala c ts done i n go od f ai th i n fu r th e r a n c e o fth e C o mmi t t e e ’ s wo r k

. ” B r o wn concedes that Sudrov ech i s e nti tl ed to im m u n i ty und er thi s Rul e. A pp ella n t’s Br. at41 ( “Def endants S ud ro vech and H ar re l l ar e i m m une fro m ci vi l sui t o nl y for
‘ o f fi c i a l a c t s d o n e i n g o o d f a i th i n fu r th e r a n c e o ft he Com m i tte e’ s work

. ’ ”)

. Ind i ana la w has re cogni zed the m er i t o fen cour aging st ate act or s who ar e invol ved i n the baradm i ssi on a n d JL A P proc ess to i ssue obj ecti ve r epo r ts wi th o utb einge xpo se d t o the threat o fv ex at i o us l i ti gat i on. W e fi nd no reaso n, norhas Brown sugg est ed any, to di sr ega rd o r disturb thi s i m m unity s chem e. H ow ev er , we are notdeci ding thi s i ssue because , as sum i ng tha t we ar e co rr ect in o u r deter m i nati on that th e j ud ge- m ade Rooke r - Fe l dm an doctr i ne appli es i n th is ca se , the r e m ayb e a j ur i sdi ct i o na l o bj ec ti o n. But, a s the dist ri ct c ourtper suasi vel y dem onst ra ted, th er e d oes not see m to be m uch doubt as to the l i kel y o utcom e o n th i s que st i o n. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm en t ofthe dist ri ct cour t i s A FFI RMED .
2- 2- 12