Unpublished Disposition, 915 F.2d 1581 (9th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseMargaret Danehy MAYNARD, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the CENTRAL DISTRICT OFCALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants/Appellees.
No. 89-55741.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 1990.* Decided Oct. 3, 1990.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Rudi M. Brewster, District Judge, Presiding.
C.D. Cal., 701 F. Supp. 738.
AFFIRMED.
Before FLETCHER, BOOCHEVER and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Margaret Danehy Maynard appeals from a Judgment and Order dismissing her action for declaratory relief against the United States District Court for the Central District of California and that court's judges. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The issues raised by appellant have been decisively resolved by this court in Giannini v. Real, No. 89-55466, Slip op. 9031 (August 16, 1990). Pursuant to this authority we affirm the district court's decision in this case.
Maynard's suit challenges Rule 2.2.1 of the Local Rules of the Central District of California. This rule requires that an attorney seeking admission to practice before the United States District Court in the Central District be a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. Maynard, admitted to practice in the State of Indiana and before both United States district courts in the District of Indiana and the Northern District of California, was refused admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to this rule. In her appeal, Maynard asserts that Rule 2.2.1 violates the due process clause. She also contends that under 28 U.S.C. § 2071 the rule is impermissibly inconsistent with the Rules of the United States Supreme Court and the Local Rules of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Giannini addressed and rejected the arguments raised by appellant in the present case. The court first held that Rule 2.2.1 is not a violation of the due process clause. It went on to hold that the rule was not inconsistent with the Supreme Court Rules. Finally, it held that the rule did not violate the principles of the right and justice standard set forth in Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641 (1987).
The only issue raised here that was not directly considered in Giannini is whether Rule 2.2.1 is impermissibly inconsistent with the Local Rules of the Ninth Circuit. Giannini's analysis regarding the rule's asserted inconsistency with the Supreme Court Rules is equally applicable, however, in this context. The Central District's Local Rule 2.2.1 is not inconsistent with Local Rules of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
