Clulow v. Oklahoma

Summary

The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Clulow’s claims challenging several involuntary mental-health commitments and his suspension from practicing law in Oklahoma. The court held that claims concerning the commitments were barred by Oklahoma’s two-year limitations period and rejected continuing-tort and concealment theories. It also upheld dismissal of the attorney-discipline claims based on jurisdictional limitations, failure to state a meritorious claim, and immunity of bar officials from damages liability.

Holdings

1. The lower federal courts lacked jurisdiction to review Clulow's suspension and reinstatement proceedings because the Oklahoma Supreme Court had considered and rejected his petitions for reinstatement; review was available only in the United States Supreme Court by writ of certiorari.
2. Although a facial challenge to general rules governing attorney discipline could fall within federal jurisdiction, Clulow failed to state a meritorious claim that the Oklahoma Supreme Court unlawfully delegated its disciplinary authority to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
3. The ex post facto prohibition did not require that attorneys seeking reinstatement be subject only to the conditions in effect when they were suspended.
4. The Oklahoma Bar Association and its officials were absolutely immune from damages claims based on their functions of investigating, preparing, presenting, and prosecuting attorney-discipline matters.
5. Oklahoma's two-year limitations period for injury to the rights of another, 12 Okla. Stat. § 95(3) (1981), governed and barred Clulow's § 1983 claims concerning the 1960, 1961, 1966, and 1972 events.
6. The alleged commitments and related proceedings were discrete events, not a continuing tort, and the alleged withholding of records did not toll or postpone accrual because Clulow knew or should have known of the existence of his claims when the events occurred.
7. The statute of limitations also barred Clulow's claims for declaratory or other equitable relief because the asserted civil-rights rights could have been enforced through an action at law for damages.
8. Count Six failed because the allegations did not plead facts showing an agreement or concerted action among the defendants, and the claim was otherwise barred by immunity as to the Bar Association defendants and by the two-year limitations period as to the remaining defendants.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the lower federal courts had subject-matter jurisdiction to review Clulow's suspension and reinstatement proceedings after review by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
2. Whether the Oklahoma Bar Association and its officials were immune from damages claims arising from their investigation, presentation, and administration of attorney-discipline matters.
3. Whether Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations governed the § 1983 and § 1985 claims based on the alleged involuntary commitments and related events.
4. Whether alleged withholding of records, continuing-tort theories, or the equitable nature of requested relief avoided or tolled the limitations bar.
5. Whether the conspiracy claim was adequately pleaded and timely as to the alleged conspirators.

Disposition

affirmed