70 F3d 1277 Acuna v. Justices of Supreme Court of State of California

70 F.3d 1277

Peter A. ACUNA, Attorney, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JUSTICES OF the SUPREME COURT OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
CHIEF JUSTICE MALCOLM LUCAS; ASSOCIATE JUSTICES KATHRYN
MICKLE WERDEGAR; STANLEY MOSK; JOYCE KENNARD; ARMAND
ARABIAN; MARVIN BAXTER; RONALD GEORGE, Associate Justices
of Supreme court of the State of California; DANIEL EL
LUNGREN, Attorney General for the State of California; THE
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; STATE BAR COURT; LISE PERLMAN;
ELLEN PECK; CARLOS VELARDE; JENNIFER GEE; STUART WOO;
DAVID CARR; TERRY R. VACCARO; ALAN K. GOLDHAMMER; The
State Bar Court for the State of California; CYDNEY
BATCHELOR, Esq., Deputy Trial Counsel of the State Bar of
California, officially and personally, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-55499.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 20, 1995.*
Decided Nov. 22, 1995.

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Before: PREGERSON, NORRIS and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Attorney Peter A. Acuna appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action challenging his attorney disciplinary proceedings currently pending in the California Supreme Court.

3

Acuna contends the district court erred by abstaining under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), from deciding his constitutional issues. This argument is foreclosed by this court's recent decision in Hirsh v. Justices of California Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.1

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1

Appellees' request for judicial notice of the underlying State Bar Court proceedings is denied