Edelmiro Martinez Rivera v. Jose Trias Monge

First Circuit

Edelmiro Martinez Rivera v. Jose Trias Monge

587 F.2d 539, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7335

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1978

Docket78-1088

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 587 F.2d 539 (Edelmiro Martinez Rivera v. Jose Trias Monge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edelmiro Martinez Rivera v. Jose Trias Monge, 587 F.2d 539, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7335 (1st Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s complaint alleged that the members of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, defendants-appellees, violated his constitutional rights in suspending him from membership in the Puerto Rican bar. The action was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and grounded jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as barred by res judicata.

The settled law, with which we agree, is “that disciplinary orders of the highest court of a state may be reviewed federally only in the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and not by suits in the district courts.” * Grossgold v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 557 F.2d 122, 125 (7th Cir. 1977); Doe v. Pringle, 550 F.2d 596 *541 (10th Cir. 1976); Mackay v. Nesbett, 412 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1969); Ginger v. Circuit Court for Wayne County, 372 F.2d 621 (6th Cir. 1967). Cf. In re MacNeil, 266 F.2d 167, 172 (1st Cir. 1959) (noting that constitutional claims in state disbarment proceedings may be preserved for federal review by the Supreme Court under its certiorari jurisdiction but do not provide a basis for removal). This complaint in essence seeks review of a state court’s disciplinary order, although it is couched in terms of a suit against the individual members of the court. Appellant “cannot invoke the provisions of § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act in federal district court so as to circumvent and avoid his obligation to seek direct review in the United States Supreme Court.” Doe v. Pringle, supra, 550 F.2d at 599. We agree with the district court’s dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

*

This rule might be questionable if no review of the constitutional issues were available in the state court. Grossgold v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 557 F.2d 122, 124 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, however, constitutional claims were presented to and considered by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. Any particular claims that were not presented would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Lovely v. Laliberte, 498 F.2d 1261 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1038, 95 S.Ct. 526, 42 L.Ed.2d 316 (1974).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s complaint alleged that the members of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, defendants-appellees, violated his constitutional rights in suspending him from membership in the Puerto Rican bar. The action was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and grounded jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as barred by res judicata.

The settled law, with which we agree, is “that disciplinary orders of the highest court of a state may be reviewed federally only in the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and not by suits in the district courts.” * Grossgold v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 557 F.2d 122, 125 (7th Cir. 1977); Doe v. Pringle, 550 F.2d 596 *541 (10th Cir. 1976); Mackay v. Nesbett, 412 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1969); Ginger v. Circuit Court for Wayne County, 372 F.2d 621 (6th Cir. 1967). Cf. In re MacNeil, 266 F.2d 167, 172 (1st Cir. 1959) (noting that constitutional claims in state disbarment proceedings may be preserved for federal review by the Supreme Court under its certiorari jurisdiction but do not provide a basis for removal). This complaint in essence seeks review of a state court’s disciplinary order, although it is couched in terms of a suit against the individual members of the court. Appellant “cannot invoke the provisions of § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act in federal district court so as to circumvent and avoid his obligation to seek direct review in the United States Supreme Court.” Doe v. Pringle, supra, 550 F.2d at 599. We agree with the district court’s dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

*

This rule might be questionable if no review of the constitutional issues were available in the state court. Grossgold v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 557 F.2d 122, 124 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, however, constitutional claims were presented to and considered by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. Any particular claims that were not presented would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Lovely v. Laliberte, 498 F.2d 1261 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1038, 95 S.Ct. 526, 42 L.Ed.2d 316 (1974).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 F.2d 539, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelmiro-martinez-rivera-v-jose-trias-monge-ca1-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack