A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### S e p t e m b e r1,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT AND REW J . O’ CONNO R,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. THE F LORI DA BAR,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 2062 ( D. C. No. CI V- 0 5 - 8 2 0 RB/ W PL)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , AN DE RS ON , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ndr ew J . O ’ C onnorappea l s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i ons t o s etas i de a cl erk’ s entr yof defaul tagai ns tthe Fl or i da B arand t o di s m i s s hi s 42 U . S. C . § 1983 s ui tforl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we AFF I RM .-2-

M r. O ’C o n n o r w as a d m itted a s a m em b er o f th e F lori d a B ar in 1 9 9 0 . In A pr i l 1992, he w as s ever el yi nj ur ed i n a ca racc i dent . A boutthi s t i m e, the B ar p lac e d h im o n e m e rg e n c ysu sp e n sio n , ap p a re n tlyfo r re a so n s u n re late d to h is i nj ur i es . A ccor di ng t o M r . O ’ C onnor , the Fl or i da Supr eme C our tor der ed the B ar t o fi l e a c om pl ai ntagai ns thi m r egar di ng the emer gencys us pens i on al l egat i ons w i thi n s i xtyday s of bei ng not i fi ed of hi s r ecove ryfr om the ac ci dent , butthe B ar n e v e rfi l e d a c o mp l a i n t . He s t a t e s th a t , i n De c e mb e r1 9 9 3 , th e F l o r i d a S u p r e me C o u rt g ra n te d h is m o tio n to b e lis te d a s in a c tiv e d u e to in c a p a c ity. In 2 0 0 2 , M r. O ’C o n n o r so u g h t a lim ited lice n se to p ra c tice law in N ew M exi co. H e i nform ed the N ew M exi co Supr eme C our tthathe w as an inac ti v e m em b er in g o o d stan d ing o f th e F lori d a B ar. W h en co n tacted , h o w ev er, the B ars t at ed thatM r . O ’ C onnorw as underemer gencys us pens i on. I n Sept ember 2003, the B ari ni t i at ed a di s ci pl i narycompl ai ntagai ns tM r . O ’ C onnor , al l egi ng thathi s N ew M exi co appl i cat i on cont ai ned a fal s e s t at ementof m at er i al fac tabout his F l ori da B ar s t atus. M r. O ’C o n n o r su e d th e F lo rid a B a r u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 a n d sta te la w , alle g in g it dep ri ved him of p ropertyw i tho ut due process byfai l i ng t o all ow him t o co ntes t the 1992 emer gencys us pens i on and i tabus ed the di s ci pl i narypr oces s , har as s ed, defa m ed, and i nfl i ct ed emot i onal di s tr es s on hi m byi ni t i at i ng and pr os ecut i ng t he 2 0 0 3 d is c ip lin a ry p ro c e e d in g . H e s o u g h t m o n e ta ry d a m a g e s a n d inju n c tiv e re lie f. U p o n M r. O ’C o n n o r’s re q u e st, th e c ler k o f th e d istric t co u rt e n ter e d a d e fa u lt-3-

agai ns tthe B ar . U pon the B ar ’ s m ot i on, the di s tr i ctcour ts etas i de the entryof defa ul tand di s m i s s ed the ca s e forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on beca us e the F lo ri d a B a r e njo y s E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity a g a in s t a § 1 9 8 3 s u it. O n appea l , M r . O ’ C onnorar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourts houl d nothave v a c a te d th e e n tr yo f

d e fa u lt. T h is is s u e is re v ie w e d fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See St j er nholm v. P et ers on , 83 F. 3d 34 7, 34 9 n . 1 ( 10 th Ci r . 19 96 ) . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 5 (c ) a llo w s a c o u rt to s e t a s id e a n e n tr yo f d e fa u lt fo r g o o d c a u s e s h o w n .

“ A ju d g m e n t is v o id w h e n a c o u rt e n te rs it la c k in g s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n ,” and “[ r ] el i ef f

r om a voi d j udgm enti s m andat or y . ” Wi l l i am s v. Li f e Sav. & Loan , 802 F. 2d 1200, 1202- 03 ( 10th C i r . 1986) ( percur i am). I tfol l ow s thatl ack of s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n c o n s titu te s g o o d c a u s e to s e t a s id e a n e n tr yo f d e fa u lt. A s di s cus s ed bel ow , t he di s tr i ctcourtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overthe ca s e, and a c c o rd in g ly , itd id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in se tti n g a sid e th e e n tryo f d e fa u lt. A s fo r t h e d is m is s a l o f th e c a s e , o u r r e v ie w is d e n o v o . Jo se p h A . ex re l. C or r i ne Wol

f e v. Ingr am , 2 7 5 F .3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 5 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e E lev e n th A m end m ent bar s sui t s, w hetherfor m on et arydam ages or i njunct i ve rel i ef, against a s ta te o r a n a rm o f

th e s ta te . See Pennhurs tStat e Sch. & Hos p. v. Halder m an , 4 6 5 U . S . 8 9 , 1 0 0 (19 8 4 ); E la m C o n str ., In c . v. R eg ’l Tra n sp . D ist. , 129 F. 3d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (p e r c u ria m ). E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity p e rt a in s to th e c o u rt ’s s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . See R u iz v . McD o n n e ll , 2 9 9 F .3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 8 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).-4-

M r . O ’ C onnorar gues thatthe Fl or i da B ari s a pr i vat e ent i tyand s o i s not ent i t l ed t o E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni ty . H ow ever , the El eventh C i r cui t , w hi ch e n c o m p a s s e s F lo ri d a , h a s h e ld to th e c o n tr a ry. See Kai m ow i tzv. F la. B ar , 9 9 6 F .2 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 5 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (p e r c u ria m ) (“ P lain tiff ’s o n lyre sp o n se to th e D e fe n d a n ts’ a rg u m e n t is h is u n su p p o rte d a ss e rtio n th a t th e F lo rid a B a r is n o t a sta te a g e n c yfo r E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t p u rp o se s. P lain tiff ’s a ss e rtio n is contr adi ct ed bythe pr eambl e of the R ul es R egul at i ng the Fl or i da B ar , w her eby the Supr eme C our tof Fl or i da es t abl i s hed the baras ‘ an off i ci al arm of the C ou rt . ’”) . F urther, t he F l ori da S up rem e C ou rt , w ho ou gh tt o k no w , has al so char act er i zed the Fl or i da B aras “‘ an off i ci al arm of the C our t . ’ ” F la. B arv. C o m m itte , 9 1 6 S o . 2 d 7 4 1 , 7 4 5 (F la. 2 0 0 5 ) (qu o ti n g R . R eg u lat ing F la. B ar, In tr o d u c tio n ), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 1890 ( 2006) . I n l i ghtof thes e author i t i es w e c an co m fo rt ab lyco n clud e tha t th e F lori d a B ar is an arm o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt o f F lo ri d a , a n d th u s it is e n title d to E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity. T her e ar e tw o exce pt i ons t o E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni ty , abr ogat i on by C o n g re s s a n d w a iv e r. S e e Jo s e p h A. , 275 F. 3d at1259. N ei therappl yher e; § 1 9 8 3 d o e s n o t a b ro g a te E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity, s ee Q uer n v. Jor dan , 440 U . S. 332, 341 ( 1979) , and the B ardi d notcons entt o M r . O ’ C onnor ’ s act i on orotherw i s e w ai ve i t s i m m uni ty . T her efor e, the di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ydi s m i s s ed th e c a s e . S e e Wi l l i a ms , 80 2 F . 2d at12 02 (“A cou rthas an o bli gati on t o d i sm i ss a co m p lai n t fo r l ac k o f su bject m att er jurisdicti o n . ”).-5-

T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge