N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ILLIAM B REC K ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. R OGER DOYLE; DAVID C LAR K; PATR IC K KING; J. THOM A S SUSIC H; LAUR A PETER S; KIM B ERLY FARM ER ; KATHLEEN B REC KENRIDGE; C AREN JENKINS; M ONIC A C AFFAR

ATTI; STATE B AR OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEVADA; SUPR EM E C OUR T OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-15319 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00649-M M D-VPC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 23, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
N OV 15 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : B YB EE, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s. 1 W illia m B re c k file d

a se c ond a m e nde d c om

pla int unde r 42 U.S.C
. § 1983
a ga inst two se ts of de fe nda nts. The first se t—

the Institutiona

l De fe nda nts— c onsists of the

State of Ne va da , the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt, a nd the Stat e B ar of Ne va d a

(“ SB N” ). The se c ond se t— the Individua l De fe nda nts— c onsists of nine

individual s who pa

rtic ipate d in B re c k’ s disc iplina ry proc e e dings be fore the SB N. The distric t c ourt found tha t a ll de fe n da

nts we re im m une from suit a nd dismi sse d B re c k ’ s c om pla int. B re c k a

p pe a ls. B e c a

use the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with thefa c ts, we will not re c ite the m he re . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a n d re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 1. As a thre shold m atte r, Appe lle e s a rgue tha t B re c k la c ks Artic l e III sta nding. To m e rit sta

nding, a litiga nt m ust de m onstra

te (1) an “ injury in fa c t ” tha

t is

“ c o nc re te and pa

rtic ula riz e d” and “ a c tua l or im

m ine nt,” (2) tha

t the injury

is fa irly

1 The C le rk is dire c t e d to a m e nd the c a

ption on the

doc k e t to re fle c t the c a ption a b ove . Spe c i fic a lly , the following pa rtie s should bere m ove d: Ja ne e n V. Isa a c son; Gle nn M . M a c ha do; M iky la M ille r; Dona ld B e ury , Esquire ; Yve tte C he va lie r; B ry a

n Hunt; a n d C arol Hum

m e l. Although na

m e d a s de fe n da

nt s in the origina l c om

pla int in the

distric t c ourt, the s e individuals a re not na m e d in the se c o nd a m e nde d c om

pla int, whic h wa s the ope rative c om pla int a t the tim e of the distric t c o urt’ s orde r be low. As a re sult, the se individuals a re not pa rtie s to a nd have not pa

rtic ipat e d in this a

ppe a l. 2tra c e a

ble to the de fe nda

nt’ s c o nduc t, a

nd (3) tha t the injury

“ l ike ly . . . will be
re dre sse d by a favora ble de c ision.” Lujan v
. De fs. of W ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (interna l quota tion m arks om itte d). The se e le m e nts m ust be
e sta blishe d “ se pa

rate ly for e a c h form of re lie f sought.” F r ie nds of the

Earth, Inc

. v . Laidlaw

Env tl. Se rv

s. (TOC ), Inc

. , 528 U.S. 167, 185 (2000). B re c k re que sts thre e form s of re lie f: a de c la rat ory judgm e nt, a

n “ injunc tion prohibiting the

c o ntinua tion of thepra c t ic e s a

nd polic ie s ” of the SB N a nd Ne va da Supre m e C ourt tha

t a re a lle g e dly

unc onstitutiona

l, a nd da m a g e s . He doe s not ha

v e sta nding to se e k injunc tive or de c la ratory re lie f. B e c a

use B re c k ha s be e n pe rpe t ua lly ba rre d from pra c tic ing la

w in theState of Ne va da , the Ne va da rule s gove rning the c onduc t of Ne va da attorne y s will ne ve r a ga in a pply to B re c k. He thus c annot de m onstra

te tha t he “ is im

m e diate ly in da nge r of susta ining som e dire c t injury ” from

c ontinue d a

pplic ation of theNe va da

rule s, pre c luding the issua nc e of prospe c tive re lie f. C ity of Los Ange le

s v . Ly ons , 461 U.S. 95, 101–02, 105 (1983) (interna l quota tion m arks om itte d). As to da m a ge s, Appe lle e s c onte nd that , be c a use B re c k doe s not c ha lle nge the orde r barring him from pra c t ic ing la

w in Ne va da tha t re sulte d from

the SB N proc e e d ings, a

ny injury tha t flows from that orde r is not “ fa irly

tra c e a ble ” to the m isc onduc t a lle ge d in thec om p la int. W e
a gre e tha t B re c k la c ks sta

nding to se e k da

m a ge s re sulting from the SB N’ s
3disc iplina

ry orde r. B ut Appe l le e s’ argum e nt fa ils to the e x te nt tha

t it ove rlooks B re c k’ s a lle gations of c om pe nsa ble injurie s tha

t do not re s ult from

the SB N’ s disc iplina ry orde r. B re c k doe s ha

ve sta nding to se e k da

m a ge s for those injurie s. Ac c ordingly , we re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s findings of im m unity only with re spe c t to thosedam a ge s c la im s. 2. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t the Institutiona

l De fe nda nts we re im

m une unde r the E le ve nth Am e ndm e nt. The Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt’ s “ ultim ate gua rante e ” is tha

t

“ nonc onse nting Sta

te s m ay not be sue d

by priva te individuals in fe de ra l c ourt.” Bd. of Trs. of Univ

. of Ala. v . Garre tt , 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001). The State of Ne va da ha s not wa i ve d its Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt im m unity , so it is im

m une from B re c k’ s da

m a ge s c la im s. Se e Ne v. R e v. Stat. § 41.031(3). Ele ve nth Am e n dm e nt im

m unity e xte nds be y ond the sta

te itse lf. “ [A] rm s of the [s] t ate ” a lso e njoy

the Am e ndm e nt’ s prote c tion. W i ll v . Mic h. De

p’t of State Polic e , 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989). We hav e pre v iously re c ogniz e d tha

t both the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt a

nd the SB N a

re arm s of the Stat e of Ne va da , a nd so a re im m une from § 1983 da

m a g e s c la im s. O’C

o nnor v . N

e v ada , 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th C ir. 1982). As a

re sult, theEle ve nth Am e n dm e nt pre c lude s B re c k’ s da m a ge s
c la im s a ga inst a ll the Institutiona l De fe nda nts. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of B re c k ’ s c om

pla int a s to the se de fe nda nts.
43. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t the Individua l De fe nda

nts we re im

m une unde r Ne va da Supre m e C ourt R

ule 106(1), whic h a ffords “ [a ] ll pa rtic ipa nts in the disc iplineproc e ss . . . a

bsolute [] im

m un[ity ] from

c ivil lia bility ” for “ a

ny a c tion take n in c onne c tion” with thedisc iplina ry proc e e dings. B ut “ [i] m

m unity unde r § 1983 is governe d by

fe de ra l la w; sta te la w c annot provide im

m unity from suit for fe de ra l c i vil rights viola

tions.” W allis e x re l. W allis v . Spe nc e r , 202 F.3d 1126, 1144 (9th C ir. 2000). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt’ s finding of im m unity for the Individua l De fe nda

nts ba se d sole ly

on a Ne v a da

Supre m e C o urt rule wa s
e rrone ous. Ne ve rthe le s s, the Individua l De fe nda nts m ay still e njoy

im m unity unde r fe de ra l la w. Those Individua l De fe nda nts tha t a re sta t e e m p loy e e s a nd sue d in the i r offic ia l c a

pa c itie s a re im m une unde r the Ele v e nth Am e ndm e nt. Se eW ill , 491 U.S. at 71. B ut Ele v e nth-Am e n dm e nt im m unity doe s not a

pply to the Individua l De fe nda nts in the ir pe rsona l c a

pa c itie s. Se eK

e ntuc k y v . Graham , 473 U.S. 159, 166–67 (1985). And B re c k ha s sue d e a c h of the Individua l De fe nda nts in his or he r pe rsona l c a

pa c ity
. Thus, if theIndividua l De fe nda nts a re im m une in the ir pe rsona l c a

p a c itie s at
a ll, tha t im m unity m u st find its sourc e outsideof the Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt or sta te la w. The Individua l De fe nda nts m ay we ll be e ntitle d to va

rious form s of fe de ra lly
5re c o gniz e d c om m on-la w im m unitie s, suc h

a s judic ia l or qua lifie d im m unity
. Se e W ill , 491 U.S. a

t 67 (“ [I] n e na c ting § 1983, C ongre ss did not inte nd to ove rride
we ll-e sta blishe d im

m unitie s or de fe nse s unde r the c om m o n la w.” ); se ealso Hirsh
v . J ustic e s of Supreme C

o urt of C al. , 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th C ir. 1995) (holding tha t C a lifornia ’ s sta

te ba r prose c utor a

nd judge s a

re “ e ntitle d to qua si-judic ia l im m unity ” for a c tions ta

ke n in disc iplina

ry proc e e dings). B ut tha

t is a fa c tua l inquiry tha t the pa rtie s did not a sk the distric t c o urt to unde rtake . W e le a v e tha t issue for the pa

rtie s to ra ise , and the distric t c ourt to a d d re ss, on re m and. W e
re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of B re c k’ s c o m pla int a s to the Individua l De fe nda nts a nd re m and for proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this m e m oran dum
. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D forfur the r pr oc e e dings. Ea c h pa

rty sha ll be ar its own c osts on a ppe a l. 2

2 In light of our disposition, we DE NY as m ootthe pe nding m otions to dism iss thea

ppe a l
. 6