ROBERT JOHN BRADY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court properly refused to convene a three-judge court and properly dismissed the action for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction and a request to convene a three-judge court, as well as the dismissal of his action for fai…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Malapportionment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Brady appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and his request that a three-judge district court be convened, and dismissing his action for failure to state a claim for relief cognizable by the court. We affirm.
The district court properly refused to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281. The Supreme Court has held that malapportionment of representation on a state bar governing body is not a violation of fourteenth amendment rights. Sullivan v. Alabama State Bar, 295 F.Supp. 1216 (M.D.Ala.), aff’d, 394 U.S. 812, 89 S.Ct. 1486, 22 L.Ed.2d 749 (1969).1 There is, thus, no substantial unsettled federal question on such malapportionment warranting a three-judge court. California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding, 304 U.S. 252, 58 S.Ct. 865, 82 L.Ed. 1323 (1938).
Further, even if the California State Bar Board of Governors were malapportioned, its acts would not for that reason be invalid, but would be valid as acts of a de facto authority. See Sullivan, supra, 295 F.Supp. at 1222. In creating the California Pilot Program In Legal Specialization and in making a rule of professional conduct to further the program with the approval of the California Supreme Court, the Board acted in accordance with statutory authority. California Business and Professions Code §§ 6031, 6076, 6077.
Nothing in the order of the district court indicates that it refused to convene a three-judge court or dismissed the action on the doctrine of abstention. We see no relevance of appellant’s argument based on abstention to the issues here on appeal.
Nor do we find any merit in appellant’s remaining contentions. The court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was proper. Having failed to state any claim for relief, appellant had no basis for any injunctive relief. His attack on the Pilot Program and the rule of professional conduct as violating his rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution is precluded by Smith v. California, 336 F. 2d 530 (9th Cir. 1964).
AFFIRMED.
. The lower courts are bound by summary dispositions of the Supreme Court. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344-45, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 2289-90, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 236-37 (1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1975)
- Cal. Water Serv. Co. v. City OF Redding, 304 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1938)
- Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (U.S. 1969)
- Smith v. The State OF Cal., 336 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1964)