Kenneth Owen, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Malcolm M. Lucas, Justice; Stanley Mosk; Joyce Kennard;armand Arabian; Marvin Baxter; Kathryn Mickle Werdegar;paul D. Jefferson; Julio Mateo, Jr.; Mukesh Advani;vivien Bronshvag; Martha C. Byrnes; Roberto Deazilan;margaret De Beers Brown; Patrick R. Dixon; Yonkel N.goldstein; George G. Cowgani; John Hisserich; Jameshussey; Marilyn J. Mackett; Patricia M. Villalobos; Adams. Ferber; Diane C. Yu; Richard J. Zanassi; Teri L.nelson; Colin P. Wong; Stephen P. Klein, M.d., Defendants-appellees, 142 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 1998)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 142 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 1998) .Submitted April 20, 1998. **Decided April 24, 1998

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Charles A. Legge, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BRUNETTI, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM* 

Kenneth J. Owen appeals pro se the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a decision of the California Supreme Court which denied his petition for writ of review of the decision of the Committee of Bar Examiners which found that Owen had failed the First Year Law Students' Examination. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Craig v. State Bar of California, No. 96-55396, slip op. 3591 (9th Cir. April 17, 1998) (applying District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983)); see also Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996); Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of California, 67 F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir. 1995); Rosenthal v. Justices of the Supreme Court of California, 910 F.2d 561, 567 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Owen's request for oral argument is denied. The brief from amicus curiae Oakland College of Law is ordered filed

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

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.