NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 13a0021n.06
No. 12-1449
UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T
E. FRANK

CORNEL I US, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MI CHI GAN AT TORNEY GRI EVANCE COMMI SSI ON; MI CHI GAN AT TORNEY DI SCI PL I NE B OARD; KENT J. VANA, Chairman; ROBE RT L . AGACI NSKI ; WI L L I AM J . DANHO F, Chairma n; J OHN F

. VAN B OL T, Executive Direc tor; STATE BA R OF MI CHI GAN; B RUCE A. COURTADE, President; J ANET K. WEL CH, Ex ecutive Direc tor, Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : MERRI TT, MARTI N, and GI L MAN, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. E. Fr ank C o rn elius, a pro se Michig an resident, appea ls a district court judgme nt dismiss ing his civil rig hts action filed pursuant to 42 U. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 and other fede ral statutes reg arding the 1992 re vocation of his law lice nse. I n 2011, Corneli us sued the Michig an Attorney Grieva nce Commi ssion; Commi ssion Chairman Kent J

. Vana and Grieva nce Administrator Robert L

. Ag acinski; the Michig an Attorney Discipline Boa

rd; Boa rd Chairman Wil liam J

. Danhof and Ex ecutive Direc tor J ohn F. Van Bolt; theNo. 12-1449 - 2 - State Ba r of Michig an; Ba

r President Br

uce A. Countade and Ex ecutive Direc tor J anet K. Welch. 1 The complaint alleg ed that the defe ndants violated Cornelius’s civil and constitutional rig hts during

a 1992 disciplinary proce eding that resulted in the revoc ati o n o f his law license. The complaint
soug ht nullification of the revoc ation order , restoration of Cornelius’s law license, and a decla ration that Michig an’s attorney disciplinary rules are unconstitutional. The d i s t rict court g rante d the defe ndants’ motions to dismiss

. The district court rea soned that the claims aga i n st the Michig an Attorney Discipline Boa

rd wer e barr ed by the Eleventh Amendment. The district c ourt found that it lacke d jurisdiction to re v i ew the claims ag ainst the rema ining defe ndants due to the doctrine develope d in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and Rooke r v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The district court’s judgme nt is revie wed de novo. Carter v. Burns , 524 F.3d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 2008). Under the Rooke r-Feldman doctrine, fede ral district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over “‘c ases broug ht by state-c ourt losers complaining of injuries cause d by state-c ourt judgme nts rende red befor e the district court proce eding s commence d an d inviting district court revie w and reje ction of t hose j udg ments. ’” Coles v. Granville , 448 F.3d 853, 857 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Exx on Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. , 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). Challeng es to a state c o u

r t’ s r e v o c ation order are g ener ally prec luded by the Rooke r-Feldman doctrine. In re Squire , 617 F.3d 461, 465 (6th Cir. 2010). Most of Cornelius’s claims reg arding his disbarment are prec l u d ed by Rooke r-Feldman

. See In re Cook , 551 F.3d 542, 547–49 (6th Cir. 2009). We reje ct Cornelius’s arg ument that he raised a fac ial or g ener al constitutional challeng e to Michig an’s disciplinary rules. Cornelius’s primary conce rn is the application of the disciplinary rules to his case
. We there fore conclude that he raised an as-a pplied challeng e, which is prec luded by Rooke r-Feldman

. See Patmon v. Mich. Supreme Court , 224 F.3d 504, 5 1 0 (6 th Cir. 2000).
W. Anthony Jenk ins, Pre sident of the Mic higan Bar, was term inated as a party on 1 October 31, 2012. Bruce A. C ourtade, the c urrent P resident of the Michigan Bar, has b een sub stituted as a defend ant.No. 12-1449 - 3 - Although Cornelius’s claim that a g rieva nce office r and two witnesses lied and committed fra ud in the disciplinary proce eding is not barr ed by the Rooke r-Feldman doctrine, see McCormick v. Braverm an , 451 F.3d 382, 392 ( 6th Cir. 2006), the complaint is untimely

. Thoug h not addre ssed by the district court, the Attorney Discipline Boa rd raised the issue of timeliness. A three -y ear statute of limit ations applies to section 1983 actions arising in Michig an. McCune v. City of Grand Rapids , 842 F.2d 903, 90 5 (6 t h Cir. 1988). The Boa rd issued the

revoc ation order on Dec ember 7, 1992. Co rn el i u s did not appea l the decision to the Michig an Supreme Court despite having the rig ht to do so. See Mich. Ct. R. 9.122(A)( 1). There fore , the three

y ear statute of limit ations expired in 1996, and Cornelius’s fede ra l complaint, filed in 2011, was more than f

ifteen y ear s late. Cornelius arg

ues t hat hi s complaint was not untimely beca use he rema ins suspen ded from the prac tice of law and there fore alleg es a continuing wrong
. “A continuing violation is occa sioned by continual unlawful acts, not continual ill eff ects from an orig inal violation.” Broom v. Strickland , 579 F.3d 553, 555 (6th Cir. 2009) (i n terna l quotation marks and citations omitted). The State of Michig an has not taken any action aga i n s t C ornelius since Dec ember 1992. He is not entitled to tolling of the s tatute of limit ations simply beca use he continues to experience the i ll eff ects of the 1992 revoc ation order

. See id . The c laims are time- barr ed. The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.