Johnson ex rel. United States v. Thomas

932 F.2d 747
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 10, 1991
DocketNo. 91-1169
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 932 F.2d 747 (Johnson ex rel. United States v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson ex rel. United States v. Thomas, 932 F.2d 747 (8th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald R. Johnson appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his complaint for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Johnson’s pro se complaint alleged professional misconduct by four private attorneys. Johnson argues that Rule 1 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota grants subject matter jurisdiction. The rule provides that if allegations of attorney misconduct, which if substantiated would warrant discipline, come to the attention of the court, the court shall refer the matter to counsel for investigation and prosecution of a formal disciplinary proceeding or the formulation of such other recommendation as may be appropriate. The rule does not grant subject matter jurisdiction for civil actions based upon professional misconduct. Since we find no error of law, we affirm the district court’s dismissal. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

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

Related

Johnson v. Thomas
932 F.2d 747 (Eighth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
932 F.2d 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-ex-rel-united-states-v-thomas-ca8-1991.