Frankel v. Supreme Ct PA

Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-13-2008 Frankel v. Supreme Ct PA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2788 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Frankel v. Supreme Ct PA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 663. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/663 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No: 06-2788 MARK DAVID FRANKEL, Appellant v. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al, Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (05-CV-01450) District Court: Hon. Legrome D. Davis Submitted July 24, 2008 Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Before: McKEE, FUENTES, and WEIS, Circuit Judges, MARK DAVID FRANKEL, pro se 1510 Kentwood Lane York, PA 17403 Counsel for Appellant MARY BUTLER, ESQ. Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for Appellee (Filed August 13, 2008 ) OPINION OF THE COURT McKee, Circuit Judge. Mark David Frankel appeals the district court’s April 4, 2005, April 20, 2005, and April 27, 2006 orders, which together dismissed the complaint in which he had alleged a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that complaint, Frankel alleged that the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and certain named individuals violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process during disciplinary proceedings that resulted in his disbarment. We will affirm. Inasmuch as we write only for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need not recite the factual or procedural background of this dispute. We have reviewed the district court’s thorough and thoughtful memoranda explaining the absence of subject matter jurisdiction to hear some of Frankel’s claims in federal court, and why the defendants are entitled to immunity on his remaining claims. The district court’s memoranda fully and accurately explain why Frankel’s complaint must be dismissed, and we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth therein.