Opinion ID: 663929
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Individualized Claims

Text: 10 Appellant claims the district court misunderstood Appellant's position regarding his individual claims. Appellant cites Brown v. Board of Bar Exam., 623 F.2d 605 (9th Cir.1980), which said that an unsuccessful bar applicant can bring two claims: (1) a general constitutional challenge to the bar admissions policies; and (2) a claim that he was unlawfully denied admission. 623 F.2d at 609. Federal district courts have jurisdiction over (1) under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343. Id. A type (2) claim may be reviewed only in the U.S. Supreme Court. 623 F.2d at 609-10; see also Tofano v. Supreme Court of Nevada, 718 F.2d 313, 314 (9th Cir.1983). Appellant says he raises only a type (1) claim. Appellant asserts his complaint requests money damages because the district court ruled before Appellant could delete his individual claims. 11 In rebuttal, Appellees argue that dismissal of the type (2) claims was proper under District of Columbia Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), which holds the same as Brown. Appellees are correct. The district court had no jurisdiction, under Feldman and Brown, over the individual claims alleged in Appellant's complaint.