N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SOUTHER

N C ALIFOR

NIA INSTITUTE OF LAW , a

C a lifornia

c orporation, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. THE STATE B A R

OF C ALIFOR

NIA; THE C OM M ITTEE OF B A R EXAM INER S; JAM ES H. AGUIR R E, individually

and in his offic i a l c a

pa c ity ; AR C HIE JOE B IGGER S, individually and in his offic ia l c a

p a c ity ; JAM ES A. B OLTON, individua

lly and in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty ; C OM ETR IA C . C OOPER , individually

and in his offic i a l c a

pa c ity ; J. SC OTT B OVITZ, individua lly and in his offic ia l c a pa c ity ; R IC HARD A. FR ANKEL, individua

lly and in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty ; K. V. KUM AR , individually and in his offic ia l c a

p a c ity ; SEAN M
. M C C OY, individually

and in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty ; SANDR

A M ENDOZA, individually

and in he r offic ia l c a

pa c ity ; JOEL M ILIB A

ND, individually

and in his offic ia l c a pa c ity ; M A R THA PR

UDENHAM ITER , individually

and in he r offic ia l c a pa c i ty ; STEVEN J. R

ENIC K, No. 14-55690

D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00996-JVS-R NB
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

AUG 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.individually and in his offic i a l c a

pa c ity ; SANDR A L. SALAZAR , individually and in he r offic ia l c a

pa c ity ; JEANNE C
. VANDER

HOFF, individually and in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity ; LEE H. W

ALLAC H, individually

and in his offic i a l c a

pa c ity ; PATR IC IA P. W HITE, individually and in he r offic ia l c a

pa c ity ; ALAN YOC HELSON, individua lly and in his offic ia l c a pa c ity ; GEOR G E LEAL, individually

and in his offic i a l c a

pa c ity ; DAVID A. C ARR ILLO, in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty ; LISA C UM M INS, individua lly and in he r offic i a l c a

pa c ity ; PATRIC K

R
. DIXON, individually

and in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty , Errone ously

Sue d As Patric k R
. Dunc an; JOHN P. M C NIC HOLAS, individually

and in his offic i a l c a

pa c ity , Errone ously Sue d As John P. Nic hola s ; JAM ES VAUGHN, individua lly and in his offic ia l c a pa c ity , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d August 5, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, SILVER

M AN, a nd WARD L AW , C i rc uit Judge s .

2The Southe rn C a lifornia Instituteof La w (SC IL) a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of its fe de ra l c onstitutiona l c la im s a ga inst m e m

be rs of C a lifornia ’ s C om m itte e of B ar Exam ine rs (C B E). As the fa c ts a re known to the

pa rtie s, we
re pe a t the m

only a s ne c e s sa

ry to e xpla in our de c i sion. W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r Appe lle e s e njoy a bsolute im

m unity in this c a se , be c a use SC IL ha s fa ile d to a lle ge a c ogniz a ble injury . The le tte r SC IL re c e i ve d from C B E ha d no le ga l c onse q ue nc e ; by se n ding it, C B E did not “m a ke any de c ision or ta

ke any sta te a c tion a ffe c ting [SC IL’ s] rights, be ne fits, re lationship or sta tus with the

sta te
. ” G ini v
. Las Ve

gas Me tro. Polic e De

p’t , 40 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th C ir. 1994). R a t

h e r, the le tte r sim

ply notifie d SC IL tha

t C B E wa s
c onte mplating

ta king a c tion a ga inst thesc h ool, a nd would do so if SC IL fa ile d to
c orre c t its c onduc t. This m e re wa rning of pote ntia l a c t ion a ga inst SC IL doe s not give rise to the sc h ool’ s c onstitutiona l c la im s. Se e C

orale s v . Be nne tt , 567 F.3d 554, 565 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ Pla intiffs do not ha ve a re t a lia tion c la im ba se d on thre a ts of disc ipline for First Am e ndm e nt a c tivity if tha t thre a t is itse lf ba se d upon la wful c onse que nc e s and is not ac tually a dm iniste re d.” ); Gaut v . Sunn , 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th C ir. 1987) (“ W e find no c a se tha t squa re ly holds a thre a t to do a

n a c t prohibite d by

the C o nstitution is e quiva le nt to doing the a c t itse l f . . . [a n d ] we are not pre pa re d to c re a te an e xc e ption to this pa tte rn.” ); K

e rle y Indus., Inc . v . Pima 3C

nty
. , 785 F.2d 1444, 1446 (9th C ir. 1986) (“ [A le tte r without] ope ra tive le ga l
e ffe c t . . . c annot c onstitute the ba sis of a c la im of de priva

tion of prope rty

without due proc e ss.” ). B e c a

use no a c t ion a ffe c ting SC IL’ s c onstitutiona l rights e ve r
oc c urre d, the sc hool’ s c la im s with re spe c t to C B E’ s le tte r we re prope rly dism isse d
. AFFIRM E D.

4