Whether the California State Bar Act violates the Supremacy Clause by immunizing defendants from federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in attorney discipline proceedings

No question identified. : IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES > IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND FOR STAY Cyrus Sanai 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. #301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: tel. (810) 717-9840 Email: cyrus@sanaislaw.com To the Honorable Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, as Circuit Justice for matters arising within territory of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Applicant Cyrus Sanai respectfully request an extension of 60 days from June 4, 2025 to and including August 4, 2025 within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s suspension order of January 10, 2025, as to which a timely motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied on March 6, 2025. See Exhs. A, D, Exh. pp. 2-3, 9. The due date for a petition for a writ of certiorari is 90 days after the date of the order denying the petition for rehearing, which was March 6, 2025. An application combined with a stay was filed with this Court in advance on or about May 21, 2025. Sanai was informed on May 380, 2025 that this cannot be combined so his is splitting the documents and dispatching this application immediately. However, the documents will arrive mop earlier than June 2, 2025. The application for extension of time should under any circumstances be granted as he was not timely informed of the rejection and indeed had to initiate contact to learn of it. The application for stay will follow after an extension is granted. Jurisdiction for a petition for certiorari in this matter arises under 28 U.S.C. §1254. There is no opposing party, so no proof of service is submitted herewith. The decision in question is the reciprocal discipline addressed in petition for review filed Sanai in 2024, Sanai v. Lawrence, Dkt. No. 24-588, which was denied on or about January 17, 2025. One month later this Court issued Williams. Williams renders the entire California attorney discipline system unconstitutional because the California State Bar Act jurisdiction-strips the state courts of general jurisdiction from hearing 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims against the proper Ex Parte Young defendants regarding attorney discipline. Sanai learned of the decision after the February 24, 2025 deadline for requesting rehearing passed. See Exh. E, Exh. pp. 30. His motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, attached as Exh. E hereto, was denied. Exh. F, Exh. p. 73. This application should be filed more than 10 days prior to the due date for the petition. It was origimaly being dispatched by overnight mail May 22, 2025 and arrived on May 24, 2025, which was 11 days prior to the expiration of the deadline for filing a petition for certiorari. That being said, the Clerk has previously confirmed that because the deadline falls on Sunday, the due date for an extension is May 27, 2025. The cases involved challenges to then-ongoing attorney discipline matters in California. All were dismissed pursuant to Younger abstention. This case presents an important questions of federal law and issues arising from from Williams, as follows: 1, Given that California’s State Bar Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §6000 et seq. (“State Bar Act”) immunizes the Ex Parte Young defendants in respect of California State Bar attorney discipline matters from lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. §1983, is the State Bar Act void under Williams, which holds that the Supremacy Clause bars state court statutes and rules which immunize particular defendants from state court lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 where the state’s courts of general jurisdiction may generally hear such lawsuits? 2. If the State Bar Act immunizes the Ex Parte Young defendants in respect of California State Bar attorney discipline matters from lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and thus v