David Lee SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.Case below, 329 Fed.Appx. 805. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
All of the other courts that had reciprocally disbarred Mr. Smith then readmitted him to their bars, except for the Colorado Supreme Court, which declined to readmit Mr. Smith. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado then reversed itself and denied Mr. Smith's reinstatement, because he remained disbarred by the Colorado Supreme Court. This denial of reinstatement was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit. In re Smith, 329 Fed.Appx. 805, 806 (10th Cir.2009). Mr. Smith filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, seeking compensation and equitable relief. He states that “the United States' actions and decisions—all of which constitute violations of Plaintiff's right to substantive and procedural due process of law and to the equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment—also constitute judicial takings of Plaintiff's private property right to practice law and make a living, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Compl. 4–5. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We affirmed the district court's rulings. In re Smith, 329 F. App'x 805, 806 (10th Cir. 2009). Smith then returned to the district court and filed another application for reinstatement and petition for relief from the rule of good standing, which the court denied on December 14, 2010.
We dismiss the matter for Mr. Smith's failure to pay the sanctions we imposed in Smith v. C.I.R., 160 Fed.Appx. 666, 670 (10th Cir. 2005). In this court alone, Mr. Smith's cases include: In re Smith, 329 Fed.Appx. 805 (10th Cir. 2009) (affirming denial of reinstatement to the bar of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado); In re Smith, 287 Fed.Appx. 683, 684 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of bankruptcy adversary proceeding seeking restoration of privileges as a licensed Colorado attorney); Smith v. Seymour, 229 Fed.Appx. 811, 812 (10th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of complaint against judges of this court, the clerk of this court, other courts involved in disciplinary decisions, a justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, and his attorney in disciplinary proceedings); Smith v. C.I.R., 160 Fed.Appx. 666, 668-70 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming United Stales Tax Court's denial of his motions for leave to file motions to vacate or revise and imposing monetary-sanctions); Smith v. Figa Bums, 69 Fed.Appx. 922, 926 (10th Cir. 2003) (dismissing appeal filed by Smith's wife concerning his malpractice claims and affirming district court's judgment on the couple's remaining claims); Marks v. U.S. We
He was also given notice by the Order to Show Cause and at the August 7, 2012 hearing that he had to present more than just evidence that he was on probationary status as grounds for readmission. Mr. Klipstine had ample opportunity at the hearing to establish the ground of good standing in the state bar, but he is legally unable to do so. Therefore, the Court will deny his petition for readmission without prejudice to its refiling if, and when, Mr. Klipstine has successfully fulfilled his two-year period of probation and has been formally reinstated as a member in good standing in the New Mexico State Bar. See In re Smith, 329 Fed.Appx. 805, 808 (10th Cir.2009) (holding that the “district court ... did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement” where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar, and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar). IV. Concerns about Mr. Klipstine's behavior in this Court during his suspension and while not authorized to practice in this Court.
Mr. Williams has not presented this Court with the essential prerequisite for admission to the bar of this Court: he is not an active member of the bar of the state of Maine and he remains under disbarment. See In re Smith, 329 Fed. Appx. 805, 807 (10th Cir. 2009); In re Discipline of Price, 294 Fed. Appx 743, 744-45 (3rd Cir. 2008); In re Kandekore, 460 F.3d 276, 279-80 (2d Cir. 2006); In re Martin, 120 F.3d 256, 258-59 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re the Matter of Reinstatement of Leaf, 41 F.3d 281, 284-85 (7th Cir. 1994); In re Smith, 100 F. Supp. 2d 412, 416 (N.D. Tex. 2000). Instead, Mr. Williams seeks reinstatement under a narrow window.