The Intentional Infliction Of Bar Admission Distress

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the dismissal of claims brought by a bar applicant against the Committee on Admissions and the Mayor’s office

In 2010, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Committee on Admissions (“Committee”) denied Clarence Jackson’s application to sit for the D.C. Bar Examination (“Bar”). Since then, Jackson has challenged that decision and, in turn, the handling of his challenge. His case reached the federal district court in 2016. The district court dismissed his  complaint based on three alternative doctrines: the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Younger abstention doctrine and the doctrine of res judicata. Because none of the three doctrines applies, we reverse.

The facts

Clarence Jackson sat unsuccessfully for the Bar four times. In 2010, he applied to sit a fifth time. He failed to pay the required fees or to provide proof of law school graduation and the Committee denied his application.

Five years later, Jackson sued the Committee in the D.C. Superior Court (“State Complaint”). He alleged that the denial of his application violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, constituted a breach of contract and resulted in the intentional infliction of emotional distress. On April 1, 2016, the Superior Court granted without explanation the Committee’s motion to dismiss the State Complaint.

On or around April 5, 2016, Jackson submitted a petition to the D.C. Mayor’s Office in an apparent attempt to seek review of the decision denying him a further opportunity to take the bar exam. The Mayor’s Office denied his petition on the ground that he had already filed a lawsuit making the same claim. Jackson then petitioned for review in the D.C. Court of Appeals, but his petition was denied as untimely.

On April 7, 2016, Jackson asked the Superior Court to explain why it dismissed the State Complaint. The request remained pending for more than one year.

He then filed this federal case and here appealed the dismissal

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents a federal district court from hearing “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Because Jackson did not ask the district court to review and reject the Superior Court’s dismissal of the State Complaint, Rooker-Feldman does not apply. The Younger doctrine prevents a federal court from interfering with certain categories of ongoing state proceedings. Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72–73 (2013). We need not decide whether Younger applied at the time of the district court’s decision; because Jackson’s state court proceedings are not currently ongoing, Younger does not apply. See Stanton v. D.C. Court of Appeals, 127 F.3d 72, 74 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

Nor does D.C.’s doctrine of res judicata apply. The full faith and credit statute dictates that D.C. law governs this issue…

A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does “preclude relitigation of the precise issue of jurisdiction that led to the initial dismissal.”

No dismissal on these bases

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The district court is free to consider, inter alia, the alternative bases for dismissal set forth in the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

(Mike Frisch )