Glick v. American Bar Assoc

Case: 24-10669 Document: 32-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

____________

FILED February 24, 2025

No. 24-10669

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Caleb D. Glick,

Plaintiff—Appellant, versus

American Bar Association,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-350

______________________________

Before Jolly, Jones, and Willett, Circuit Judges.* Per Curiam:**

Caleb Glick, proceeding pro se, is an aspiring Texas lawyer. Glick con- tends that his future career as a lawyer is thwarted by Texas’s requirement that he attend an American Bar Association (“ABA”)-accredited law school. As a result, Glick sued the ABA for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and federal and Texas antitrust violations. He now appeals the district Case: 24-10669 Document: 32-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2025

No. 24-10669 court’s order declining to remand his case to state court and dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Glick also asserts that the magistrate judge was biased and should have recused himself because the magistrate judge attended an ABA-accredited law school and this case involves the ABA.

The district court found1 diversity jurisdiction and denied Glick’s mo- tion to remand: Glick is a citizen of Texas and the ABA is a citizen of Illinois notwithstanding Glick’s arguments to the contrary. The district court fur- ther granted the ABA’s motion to dismiss for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. First, the district court dismissed Glick’s breach of contract claim: the United States and Texas Constitutions do not consti- tute contracts between Glick and the ABA; furthermore, Glick failed to plead facts demonstrating that the ABA had harmed him. Second, the district court dismissed Glick’s unjust enrichment claim: Glick failed to plead with plausi- bility that his inability to practice law benefited the ABA. Third, the district court dismissed Glick’s federal and Texas antitrust claims: Glick failed to identify the specific federal antitrust violation at issue and he failed to allege facts implicating the federal antitrust statutes. Still further, the Texas anti- trust law provisions invoked by Glick do not provide a private cause of action. Finally, the district court denied Glick’s motion to recuse the magistrate judge.

On appeal, Glick continues to argue that (1) the ABA is a citizen of Texas; (2) the United States and Texas Constitutions constitute contracts between him and the ABA; (3) the ABA benefited by obtaining coercive Case: 24-10669 Document: 32-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2025

No. 24-10669 leverage over him through its monopolistic control of the Texas legal system; (4) the ABA is not immune to antitrust laws; and (5) the magistrate judge was biased against him.

Because Glick’s appeal lacks any arguable merit, it is frivolous.2 Ac- cordingly, Glick’s appeal is, in all respects,

DISMISSED.