Warren v. Burdi
2:10-cv-11775
| E.D. Mich. | Jan 26, 2011Background
- Warren, a Michigan attorney, is currently suspended from practicing law and sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the attorney disciplinary process and denial of reinstatement.
- Defendants include the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and staff (Agacinski, Vella), Levine (former client), Shea/Creighton firm, Wegner firm, and Burdi; these entities were involved in disciplinary and related civil actions.
- The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board authored findings against Warren for professional misconduct connected to Levine loan arrangements; Warren was suspended for 18 months with reinstatement conditioned on executing a promissory note and mortgage to secure a $70,000 loan.
- Warren’s relationship with Levine involved a private loan and related mortgageДок; disputes over terms, modifications, and subsequent recordation arose, with further involvement by Burdi and Shea in attempted mortgage/real estate transactions.
- Plaintiff also pursued unrelated state-law actions (foreclosure, eviction, bankruptcy) that are part of the background but not central to the federal § 1983 claim, which centers on the disciplinary process and reinstatement.
- The magistrate judge recommends dismissing Warren’s § 1983 claims, granting sanctions against Warren’s counsel, and denying sanctions against Burdi.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rooker-Feldman jurisdiction bars federal review. | Warren contends fed. court review is appropriate for constitutional claims | Defendants argue state disciplinary judgments are final and not reviewable | Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman |
| Eleventh Amendment and official-immunity defenses bar claims against state actors. | Plaintiff asserts federal rights claims against Grievance Commission/Staff | State entities and staff enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity and official-immunity under MCR 9.125 | Entities immune; claims barred against Grievance Commission and staff |
| Sanctions warranted against Warren for frivolous litigation. | Plaintiff disputes sanctions; no frivolous conduct admitted | Sanctions appropriate due to lack of legal support and frivolous arguments | Sanctions recommended against Wegner and Levine; Burdi’s sanction denied |
| Eighth Amendment claim is inapplicable to discipline proceedings. | Plaintiff asserts punishment-like effects violate Eighth Amendment | Eighth Amendment does not apply to disciplinary proceedings; no cruel/unusual punishment here | Eighth Amendment claim dismissed as inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (limits of Rooker-Feldman; parallel actions allowed)
- Patmon v. Michigan Supreme Court, 224 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2000) (Rooker-Feldman bars federal review of state-court judgments in disciplinary context)
- Fieger v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 1996) (judicial review of discipline permitted; discretionary review suffices)
- Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state actors immune from § 1983 in official-capacity claims)
- Eston v. Van Bolt, 728 F. Supp. 1336 (E.D. Mich. 1990) (Eleventh Amendment/official immunity in disciplinary context)