Roshan v. Cardona

Background

Peyman Roshan brought the case to stop State Bar disciplinary proceedings and obtain a declaration that State Bar disciplinary rules and procedures were unconstitutional. The court previously dismissed the case under Younger abstention, a doctrine that generally prevents a federal court from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and the Supreme Court denied Roshan’s petition asking it to review the case.

Motion and Arguments

Roshan moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which permits relief from a judgment for an extraordinary reason. He relied on an alleged intervening change in the law, citing Williams v. Reed and Seattle Pacific University v. Ferguson.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Williams did not change the law governing Roshan’s claims. According to the court, Williams addressed state administrative exhaustion requirements, not abstention. The court also relied on a later Ninth Circuit decision in another case filed by Roshan, which held that Williams did not change the analysis because the dispute involved abstention rather than exhaustion.

The court likewise held that Seattle Pacific did not change the applicable law. In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that a state attorney general’s investigation did not justify Younger abstention because it was not a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. The court distinguished Roshan’s case because he sought to stop State Bar disciplinary proceedings, which the court said are judicial in character. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit had already denied two requests by Roshan to recall its mandate, including one based on Seattle Pacific.

Disposition

Judge Alex G. Tse denied Roshan’s motion for relief from judgment. The opinion does not state that the prior judgment was vacated or otherwise changed.