2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit 8-13-2010 

# T on y W i l son v . M ark D ows P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o .;09-4196

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" T on y W i l s on v . M ark D ows " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 759. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/759NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 4196

___________ T ONY A. WI L S ON, A ppel l ant

v . M A R K S . D O W S , (E x ec u ti v e D ir ec tor) A s a m em ber of the Pen nsy l van i a B oard of L aw E xam i nersgener al chal l enge t o Pa. B . A . R . 213( a) , and The St at e Law of Penns y l vani a B oar d of Law E xami ner s i s notbei ng s ued

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 02219) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t10, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t13, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM T onyW i l s on appea l s pr o s e fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforS e e D .C . C o u rt o f A p p e a ls v . F e ld m a n , 4 6 0 U .S . 4 6 2 (1 9 8 3 ); R o o k e r v . F id e lity 1 T rust C o . , 2 6 3 U . S . 4 1 3 , 4 1 6 (19 2 3 ). In 2 0 0 2 , W ilso n b ro u g h t a la w su it— u n re late d to th e in sta n t ca se — in th e M id d le 2 D istri ct of

F lori d a. D u ri n g the p re-tr ial li ti g ati o n o f th at l aw su it , the d istri ct co u rt i m pos ed ce r t ai n r es tr i ct i ons upon W i l s on, appar ent l yas a r es ul tof fr i vol ous fi l i ngs by W i l s on. Forexampl e, the di s tr i ctcourtor der ed W i l s on t o r efr ai n fr om fi l i ng anyfurther m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm entaft erW i l s on had al r eadyfi l ed s ever al s uch mot i ons ( al l of w hi ch w er e di s m i s s ed) . W i l s on s ubs equent l ydi s obey ed the di s tr i ctcourtand fi l ed y et anotherm ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he oppos i ng partythen fi l ed a mot i on w i th the di s tr i ctcourtas ki ng thatW i l s on be hel d i n cont emptforhi s vi ol at i on of the di s tr i ct court ’ s r es tr i ct i on. U l t i m at el y , the di s tr i ctcourti s s ued an or derdeny i ng W i l s on’ s m ot i on 2 the M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s ci vi l r i ght s compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on underthe R ooker
- Fel dm an doctr i ne. 1 O n D ece m ber4, 2008, W i l s on r ece i ved a l ett erfr om M ark D ow s , the Execut i ve D i r ect orof the Penns y l vani a B oar d of Law E xami ner s ( “PB L E ” or“B oar d”) , not i fy i ng W ilso n th a t h e lac k e d th e re q u isite c h a ra c tera n d f itn e ss f o r a d m iss io n to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia B ar . O n D ece m ber11, 2008, he fi l ed a c i vi l r i ght s act i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983,
a lleg in g th a t, alth o u g h h e p a ss e d th e b a r e x a m in a tio n , the P B L E w ro n g lyd e n ied h im adm i ssi on t o the bar pursuant t o R ule 213(a) based on charact er and fitness. A c c o rd in g to W ilso n ’s C o m p lain t, w h ich w e su m m a riz e h e re , the B o a rd b a se d its den i al of ad m i ssi on sol el yon pri or nega t i ve ev al uati on s of W i l son’s charact er and fitness conduct ed bythe Fl or i da and Connect i cutbar s . W i l s on al l eges thatthe doctr i ne of r es ju d ica ta pr ecl udes the PB L E fr om bas i ng i t s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on foradmi s s i on t o the Penns y l vani a barupon the s ame al l eged mi s behavi orthatw as t aci t l ycondoned bythe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Fl or i da. H e al s o m ai nt ai ns that 2f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a n d a ls o d e n y in g th e o p p o s in g p a rt y ’s m o tio n f o r c o n te m p t. A cc o rdin g to W il so n , the P B L E b ase d it s d en ial o f h is ba r ap p li ca ti o n u p o n the v ery s ame act i ons thatw er e the bas i s forthe mot i on t o hol d hi m i n cont empti n the 2002 l i t i gat i on. W i l s on ther efor e ar gues thats i nce the di s tr i ctcourti n the 2002 ca s e al r eady t aci t l ycondoned thos e ac t i ons byr efus i ng t o hol d hi m i n cont empt , the PB L E i s barr ed u n d er re s ju d ica ta fr om r el y i ng on thos e ac t i ons t o denyhi m admi s s i on t o the P en n sy lvan ia ba r. W e need no treach the m eri t s of W i l son’s re s ju d ica ta a r g u me n tb e c a u s e we d is p o s e o f

th e a p p e a l o n o th e r g ro u n d s . 3 P a . B .A .R . 2 1 3 is u n c o n stitu tio n a l b e c a u se th e R u le f a ils to im p o se a d u tyo n th e P B L E to pr ovi de barappl i cant s w i th adequa t e not i ce of the r eas ons w hytheyw er e r efus ed adm i ssi on t o the bar. D ow s’ s l et t er, W i l son clai m s, w as const i tuti on al l ydefici ent because i tfai l ed t o appr i s e hi m of the gr ounds forfi ndi ng thathe l acke d the r equi s i t e cha r act er and fi tnes s . W i l s on al l eges cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons of equa l pr ot ect i on, due pr oces s , the Fi r s tA m endment , r es j udi cat a, and ful l fai th and cr edi t . H e s eeks fede r al over s i ghtof the PB L E ’ s act i ons and thatof i t s exec ut i ve di r ect ori n or dert o pr ot ectW i l s on’ s equal pr ot ect i on and due pr oces s r i ght s . H e r eques t s decl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef e nj oi ni ng the exe cut i ve di r ect ororthe B oar d fr om ( 1) us i ng as evi dence atW i l s on’ s hear i ng the char ges r el i ed on bythe Fl or i da and Connect i cutbarexami ner s i n thei rbaradmi s s i on pr ocee di ngs , and ( 2) bas i ng i t s deci s i on t o denyadmi s s i on t o the Penns y l vani a B aron s uch evi dence . M ark D ow s fi l ed an A ns w erand a mot i on forj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs , ar gui ng thatW i l s on’ s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be g ra n ted . D o w s a lso c o n ten d e d th a t W ilso n ’s la w su it w a s b a rre d b yth e E lev e n th4

Ame n d me n t , a n d th a t§ 1 9 8 3 b a rr e d W i l s o n ’ s c l a i ms f o ri n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

a g a i n s th i m, beca us e he w as act i ng as a j udi ci al offi ceri n pr el i m i nar i l ydeny i ng admi s s i on t o the Penns y l vani a B arbas ed on cha r act erand fi tnes s . W i l s on r es ponded and D ow s r epl i ed. T he M agi s tr at e J udge i s s ued a Repor tr ecomm endi ng thatthe mat t erbe di s m i s s ed s ua s pont e forl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o R ul e 12( h) ( 3) of the Feder al R ules of C i vil P rocedu re and t he R oo ker- F el dm an d octr i ne. T he M agis trat e Judg e al so found that , t o the ext entthatW i l s on’ s baradmi s s i on pr ocee di ngs w er e pendi ng, the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d abs t ai n fr om exer ci s i ng i t s j ur i s di ct i on underY oungerv. H arr i s , 401 U .S . 3 7 (1 9 7 1 ). W ilso n o b jec ted , as se rtin g , am o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t h e w a s n o t “a sta te co u rtlose r” b ec au se D o w ’s de cisi o n w as n o t a st ate c o u rtd ec isi o n to w h ich R o o k erF e ld m a n a p p lie d , a n d th a t h is c a s e f it in to o n e o f

th e e x c e p tio n s to th e Y o u n g e r d o c tr in e . T h e D istric t C o u rt o v e rru led W ilso n ’s o b jec tio n s, a d o p ted th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s R e p o rt, a n d d is m is s e d W ils o n ’s C o m p la in t p u rs u a n t to R u le 1 2 (h )( 3 ) a n d R o o k e r- F e ld m a n . W ilso n f iled th is tim e lya p p e a l. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r sta n d a rd o f re v iew is p lena ry . S ee T u rne r v. C raw fo rd S q u are A p artm en ts I II, L . P . , 4 4 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (st ati n g stan d ard o f re v iew fo r dism issal un d er R o o k er-F eldm an d o ctri n e); G w ynedd Pr ops . I nc. v. L ow erG w ynedd Tw p. , 970 F. 2d 1195, 1199 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( s t at i ng s t andar d of r evi ew overl egal det erm i nat i ons as t o w hetherY oungerabs t ent i on r equi r ement s ar e met ) . W e w i l l aff i r m , al bei tfordi ffe r entr eas ons . I n r e M us hr oomT he l ack of a s t at e courtj udgm entdi s t i ngui s hes W i l s on’ s cas e fr om the ca s es the 3 D i stri ctC ou rtrel i ed o n. N otabl y , i n P aw l ak v . P enn sy l van i a B oard of L aw E xam i ners, C iv . A . N o s. 9 3 -1 9 9 8 , 9 3 -2 7 2 4 , 1 9 9 5 W L 5 1 7 6 4 6 , (E .D . P a . A u g . 3 0 , 1 9 9 5 ), an d in W i l s on’ s ci vi l cas e cha l l engi ng the deni al of admi s s i on t o the Fl or i da bar , W i l s on v. G av ag n i, C iv. A . N o . 0 8 -00 3 6 1 , 2 0 0 9 W L 3 0 5 5 3 4 8 (N . D . F la. S ep t. 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 ), b ef o re f ili n g su it i n f

e d e ra l co u rt, th e p e tit io n e rs h a d c o m p lete d th e p ro c e d u ra l p ro c e ss se t f o rth in th e B a r ru les , en d in g in th e d e n ial o f th e ir p e tit io n s to th e sta te s u p re m e c o u rt. 5 T r ans p. C o. , 382 F. 3d 325, 344 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( courtof appe al s m ayaff i r m on di ffe r ent g rou n d s tha n tho se re li ed o n b yd istri ct co u rt ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtapp l i ed R oo ker- F el dm an in W i l son’s case, m i st aking i tas a d o c trin e o f

b ro a d a p p lica tio n . R o o k e r-F e ld m a n is re stric ted in its a p p lica tio n o n lyto “c ase s b rou g h t bystat e-c o u rtlose rs co m p lai n ing o f in juri es c au sed b ystat e-c o u rt j udgm ent s r ender ed bef or e the di s tr i ctcourtpr ocee di ngs comm ence d and i nvi t i ng di s tr i ct c o u rt re v iew a n d re

jec tio n o f

th o se ju d g m e n ts.” S e e E x x o n M o b il C o rp . v . S a u d i B a sic Ind u s. C o rp., 5 4 4 U . S . 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 (20 0 5 ). H e re , the D istric t C o u rt o v e rlo o k e d th e f a c t th a t th e re is n o sta te c o u rt ju d g m e n t in W i l s on’ s cas e — ther e i s onl yD ow s ’ s l ett eri nform i ng W i l s on of the pr el i m i narydeni al o f a d m iss io n to th e b a r a n d n o tify in g h im o f h is rig h t to a h e a rin g . S im p lyp u t, W ilso n is 3
n o t a s tate -c o u rt lo se r. A ru lin g b yth e D istric t C o u rt in W ilso n ’s c a se , w h e th e r in h is f a v o r o r n o t, c o u ld n o t im p lic a te a P e n n s y lv a n ia s ta te c o u rtd e c is io n b e c a u s e n o n e e x is ts . See e. g. , G ul l a v. N . St r abane T w p. , 146 F. 3d 168, 173 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng that R o o k e r-F e ld m a n d id n o t ap p lyb e c a u se “ th e sta te c o u rt c o u ld n o t an d d id n o t ad ju d ica te the mer i t s of thei rcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s ”) . H ence , w e conc l ude thatthe R ooker
- Fel dm anO n D ec em b er 9 , 2 0 0 8 , W il so n fo rm all yreq u ested a h ea ri n g b ef o re the B o ard 4 pur s uantt o R ul e 213( b) of the Penns y l vani a B arA dm i s s i on R ul es . T he hea r i ng w as o rig in a llysc h e d u led f

o r Ja n u a ry8 , 2 0 0 9 . A f

terh e f iled h is la w su it i n th e D istric t C o u rt, h o we v e r , Wi l s o n s o u g h ta n i n d e f i n i t e p o s tp o n e me n to f

th e P BL E h e a r i n g , wh i c h Do ws agr eed t o, s t at i ng thatthe hea r i ng w oul d be pos tponed “unt i l y ou [W i l s on] advi s e me t hat y ou ar e r eadyt o pr ocee d. ” ( See D oe’ s R epl yB r i ef i n Suppor tof M ot i on forJ udgm enton the Pl eadi ngs , E xh. “D - 3. ”) Y o u n g e r a b ste n tio n is n o t p ro p e rlya p p lied in c a se s w h e re “ (1 ) th e sta te 5 p r o c e e d i n g s a r e b e i n g u n d e r t a k e n i n b a d f a i th o rf o rp u rp o s e s o f

h a r a s s me n t ; o r( 2 ) s o me 6 do ctri ne d oes no tprecl ud e the D i stri ctC ou rtfrom con si deri ng W i l son’s cl ai m s. W e agr ee w i th the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s concl us i on, how ever , thats o l ong as W il so n ’s ba r ad m issi o n is pe n d ing fin al de cisi o n in state p roc ee d ing s, the D istri ct C o u rt s houl d abs t ai n underY oungerfr om exer ci s i ng i t s j ur i s di ct i on overW i l s on’ s cl ai m s for decl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef. T he Y oungerabs t ent i on doctr i ne r efl ect s “a s tr ong 4 fede r al pol i cyagai ns tfede r al
- courti nt er fer ence w i th pendi ng s t at e j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs abs entextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s . ” See M i ddl es ex C ountyE thi cs C om m . v. G ar den S tate B a r A ss ’n , 4 5 7 U .S . 4 2 3 , 4 3 1 (1 9 8 2 ). T h e d o c trin e h a s b e e n e x ten d e d to a p p lyto “s t at e admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs i n w hi ch i m por t ants t at e i nt er es t s ar e vi ndi cat ed. . . . ” O hi o C i vi l R i ght s C om m ’ n v. D ayt on C hr i s t i an Sch. I nc. , 477 U . S. 619, 627 ( 1986) ; s ee also O ’N eil l v. C ityo f P h il ad elph ia, 3 2 F . 3 d 7 8 5 , 7 8 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). A b ste n tio n u n d e r Y o u n g e r is w a rra n ted w h e n (1 ) th e re is a p e n d in g sta te p ro c e e d in g th a t is ju d icia l in n a tu re ; (2 ) th e p ro c e e d in g im p lica tes im p o rta n t sta te i nt er es t s , and ( 3) ther e i s an ade quat e opportuni tyi n the s t at e pr ocee di ng forthe pl ai nt i ff to ra is e h is c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e s . M id d le s e x C o u n ty E th ic s C o m m ., 4 5 7 U .S . a t 4 3 2 . 5o th e r e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s e x ist su c h a s p ro c e e d in g s p u rsu a n t to a f lag ra n tly u n c o n stitu tio n a l sta tu te, s u c h th a t d e f e re n c e to th e sta te p ro c e e d in g w ill p re se n t a s i gni fi canti m m edi at e pot ent i al fori rr epar abl e harm t o the fe der al i nt er es t s as s ert ed. ” S ch all v . Jo y ce , 8 8 5 F . 2 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). T h ere is no ev iden ce o n this reco rd thatei therexce pt i on appl i es i n W i l s on’ s cas e. W e a lso c o n clud e tha t th e m att er is no t r ipe f o r rev iew g iven the p reli m inary 6 n ature o f th e d en ial o f b ar a d m issi o n an d the lac k o f p rejud ice to W il so n at th is j u n cture i n the proceedings. 7 A ll three fa ctors a re p rese n t i n W il so n ’s ca se. W il so n ’s ca se is p en d ing b ef o re the B o ard o f L a w E x a m in e rs, w h ich a c ts a s a n a rm o f th e c o u rt in o v e rse e in g b a r a d m iss io n a n d in conduct i ng hear i ngs . See A ppeal of M urphy , 393 A . 2d 369, 371 ( Pa. 1978) ( “The admi s s i on of a pe r s on t o pr act i ce l aw i n thi s s t at e i s and al w ay s has been a j udi ci al f u n c tio n , ex e rc ise d n o w e x c lu siv e lyb yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, w ith th e a id o f th e S tate B o a rd o f L a w E x a m in e rs” ). P e n n sy lv a n ia h a s a n e x tre m e lyim p o rta n t in ter e st in
r egul at i ng admi s s i on t o the bar , as i thas i n enfor ci ng pr ofes s i onal di s ci pl i ne among t he
m em b ers o f th e b ar. Se e M idd lesex C o u n tyE thics C o m m . , 4 5 7 U . S . at 43 4 . M o reo v er, W i l s on has an opportuni tyt o r ai s e hi s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and have them deci ded i n a tim e lym a n n e r b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt. T h u s, th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld abs t ai n fr om i nt er fer i ng w i th the ongoi ng baradmi s s i on pr ocee di ngs , i n the abs ence of bad fai th, harass m ent, or ot her excep t i on al ci rcum st ances. 6 A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt ju d g m e n t.