Case Name: John DOE and Richard H. Foster, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1978-09-18
Citations: 582 F.2d 25
Docket Number: No. 76-2894
Parties: John DOE and Richard H. Foster, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MERRILL and TANG, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 582
Pages: 25–26

Head Matter:
John DOE and Richard H. Foster, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 76-2894.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 18, 1978.
Richard H. Foster (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Ronald W. Stovitz (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before MERRILL and TANG, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
For the District of Idaho, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from the judgment of the district court dismissing this action to en join disciplinary proceedings of the State Bar of California against appellant John Doe. Appellants contend that the disciplinary proceedings violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
After a careful review of the record and the briefs of counsel, it is our opinion that the trial judge correctly concluded that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary proceedings of the State Bar of California for the reasons stated in his opinion. Doe v. State Bar of California, 415 F.Supp. 308 (N.D.Cal.1976). See also MacKay v. Nesbett, 412 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 960, 90 S.Ct. 435, 24 L.Ed.2d 425 (1969).
Affirmed.