Legal Opinion
Ford v. Tait
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided September 25, 2001No. CIV. A. 00-2687 (RMU)PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
URBINA, District Judge.
Granting The Dependants’ Motion To Dismiss
I. INTRODUCTION
This attorney-disciplinary action comes before the court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Jeffrey M. Ford (“the plaintiff’ or “Mr. Ford”) brings this civil-rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Ford, an attorney proceeding pro se, alleges that Bar Counsel Joyce Peters, Assistant Bar Counsel Traci Tait, and Executive Attorney for the Board of Professional Responsibility Elizabeth Branda…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Slater v. BiehlDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Stein v. Legal Advertising Committee of the Disciplinary BoardDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2003
- Yelverton v. FoxDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Franco v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
- Eisenberg v. West Virginia Office of Disciplinary CounselDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2020
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.