T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S IM O N L E V I, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. S T A T E B A R O F C A L I F O RN I A ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 15242 D. C . No . C V- 0 7 - 0 4 3 7 8 - MHP ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a r i l y n H . P a t e l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y 25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S im o n L e v i ap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is a c t i o n a g a i n s tth e St a t e Ba ro f Ca l i f o rn i aa n d J u s t i c e s o f

th e Ca l i f

o rn i aSu p r e me 

# FI LED JU N 21 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 15242 2 C ou rtas barr ed by the R ooke r - Fe ldm an doc tr i ne . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo, N o e l v . H a ll , 34 1 F . 3d 11 48 , 11 54 (9th C i r. 2003) , a nd w e a f

f i rm i n pa r t , va c a t e i n pa r t , a nd r e m a nd. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y c on cl ud ed thatthe R ooke r - Fe ldm an doc tr i ne b a rr e d th e a c tio n b e c a u s e it is a f o rb id d e n d e f

a c to ap p e a l o f

th e C a lif

o rn ia S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng L e vi ’ s appl i c a t i on f ora dm i s s i on t o the ba r , a nd th e r e m a in in g c la im s a r e in e x tr ic ab ly in te r tw in e d w ith th e f o rb id d e n ap p e a l. See i d. a t1158; Cr ai

g v . State B arof

C al . , 141 F . 3d 1353, 1354 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ [ u] nde rC a l i f orni al a w , onl y the s t a t e s upr e m e c our t. . . ha s the au th o ri ty t o g ran to r d en y ad m i ssi o n t o th e b ar[, ] ” an d h o l d i n g th at“ [b ] ecau se [ p la in tif f s o u g h t] r e v ie w o f

th e C a lif

o rn iaS u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n to d e n y h is i ndi vi dua l appl i c a t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tl a c ke d s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on” pu rs uantt o the R ooke r - Fe ldm an do ctri ne). W e do notc ons i de ri s s ue s r a i s e d i n the ope ni ng br i e f f orw hi c h L e vi d e v e lo p e d n o a r g u m e n t. Se e A c o s ta - H u e r ta v . Es te lle , 7 F . 3d 13 9, 14 4 (9th C i r. 19 92 ) ( i ss ues r ai se d i n p ro se l i t i gant ’ s bri ef bu tno tsupp ort ed by ar gu m entar e deem ed w ai ved). D i sm i ss al s und erthe R ooke r - Fe ldm an doc tr i ne a r e di s m i s s a l s f orl a c k of s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n , Kougas i an v . T M SL , 35 9 F . 3d 11 36 , 11 39 (9th C i r.08- 15242 3 20 04 ), and thu s, shou l d b e di sm i ss ed w i tho utprej ud i ce , Fr e e m an v . O akland U n i f i ed Sch . D ist . , 1 7 9 F . 3 d 8 4 6 , 8 4 7 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( o r d e r ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we va c a t e i n pa r tthe j udgm e nt , a nd r e m a nd f orthe l i m i t e d purpos e of di s m i s s i ng the ac t i on w i tho utprej ud i ce . T h e p a r tie s s h a ll b e a rth e iro w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. A FFI R M ED i n pa r t ; VA C A TED i n pa r t ; R EM A N D ED .