HAROLD FORD V. IDAHO STATE BAR, No. 10-35861 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAROLD FORD, No. 10-35861 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00640-MHW v. MEMORANDUM * IDAHO STATE BAR; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding ** Submitted February 28, 2012 *** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Harold Ford appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging Idaho state bar decisions resolving his claims * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** Ford consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** against a former attorney for misconduct and reimbursement of attorney s fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ford s action as barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine because the action is a forbidden de facto appeal of state bar decisions, and raises constitutional claims that are inextricably intertwined with those decisions. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158; Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction where the plaintiff essentially asked the federal court to review the state court s denial in a judicial proceeding, and to afford him the same individual remedy he was denied in state court (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Ford s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 10-35861

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.