JOSEPH SHALANT V. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, No. 17-55050 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH LEIB SHALANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-55050 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01069-VBF-PLA v. MEMORANDUM* STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Joseph Leib Shalant, a disbarred attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a California State Bar Rule violates the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Shalant’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Shalant’s equal protection claim was raised in a prior California State Bar Court proceeding that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6084(a) (“When no petition to review or to reverse or modify has been filed by either party within the time allowed therefor. . . the decision or order of the State Bar Court shall be final and enforceable.”); Wehrli v. County of Orange, 175 F.3d 692, 694 (9th Cir. 1999) (according preclusive effect to administrative proceedings “where judicial review of the administrative adjudication was available but unused”); see also Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to state court judgments); DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 382 n.1, & 386-87 (Cal. 2015) (setting forth requirements for res judicata, or claim preclusion, defining primary rights doctrine, and discussing privity). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 17-55050 Shalant’s requests for costs, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 17-55050
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.
