Case Name: Peter D. PREVETT, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT, Defendant, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-15
Citations: 120 F. App'x 843
Docket Number: No. 04-2112
Parties: Peter D. PREVETT, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT, Defendant, Appellee.
Judges: Before TORRUELLA and SELYA, Circuit Judges, and STAHL, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 843–844

Head Matter:
Peter D. PREVETT, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 04-2112.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Feb. 15, 2005.
Peter D. Prevett on brief pro se.
Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General, and Daniel J. Mullen, Associate Attorney General, on brief for appellee.
Before TORRUELLA and SELYA, Circuit Judges, and STAHL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, pro se appellant Peter Prevett appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his suit, which challenged, on equal protection grounds, the facial validity of a state bar admission rule, N.H. Sup.Ct. R. 42(10)(a)(ii), and the state supreme court's reliance on the rule to deny his application for admission to the bar. In an order dated May 26, 2004, the district court dismissed the challenge to the state court's denial of the appellant's bar application based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In an order dated August 4, 2004, the court rejected the challenge to the facial validity of the rale, finding that there was no equal protection violation because the rale is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. After careful review of the record and the appellate filings, we affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its thoughtful decisions.
Affimed.