Okay, the user wants a detailed but concise summary of the provided document. Let me start by reading through the document carefully.
First, the document is about the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. There's a notice about subscribing for electronic updates, but the main content is the August 19, 2009 release regarding a federal court lawsuit against the Board.
The key points are: David E. Danner filed a complaint in 2008, alleging that disciplinary action was taken against him in retaliation for an article he published in The City Paper in March 2008. The lawsuit was dismissed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on August 7, 2008, under the abstention doctrine because it was similar to a previous case from 2006 and there was no ongoing proceeding for his suspension. Danner appealed, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and he sought en banc review which was denied. Then, on August 14, 2009, the Court of Appeals' mandate was sent to the district court.
I need to make sure the summary includes all these dates and events. Also, the user specified to start directly with the content and not add any extra language. The original document has some formatting with headers and contact info, but the summary should focus on the main event: the dismissal of the lawsuit.
I should check if there are any other important details. The case number is Danner 3:08-0651 rel.doc, which might be relevant. Also, the legal references to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 are important because they indicate the basis of his claim.
I need to structure the summary in a clear, chronological order. Start with the filing date, the allegations, the dismissal reason, the appeal, the circuit court's decision, the en banc review denial, and the final mandate date. Keep it concise but ensure all critical information is included. Avoid any markdown and use plain text. Also, make sure the language is in English as per the user's request.
Wait, the user mentioned "detailed but concise," so I need to balance between including all necessary details and not being too verbose. The main elements are the lawsuit, the dismissal, the legal basis, the appeals process, and the outcome.
I should also mention that the lawsuit was dismissed because it was deemed identical to a previous case and there was no active proceeding for suspension. That's the key point from the abstention doctrine.
Double-check the dates: June 27, 2008 complaint, August 7, 2008 dismissal, appeal, Sixth Circuit affirmed, en banc review denied, and August 14, 2009 mandate sent.
Make sure to note the case number and the legal sections cited. Also, the contact information for David Danner and the Board is there, but maybe that's not necessary for the summary unless it's relevant. The user didn't ask for that, so probably just focus on the lawsuit details.
Alright, putting it all together in a straightforward manner without any extra fluff. Ensure clarity and that each part of the process is clearly outlined.
David E. Danner, a Tennessee lawyer with BPR# 17060, filed a federal court lawsuit on June 27, 2008, against the Board of Professional Responsibility and Disciplinary Counsel (TBPR) of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The complaint alleged that TBPR took disciplinary action against him in retaliation for an article he published in The City Paper in March 2008, which criticized the Tennessee Plan’s judicial selection process. On August 7, 2008, Senior U.S. District Judge John T. Nixon dismissed the case under the abstention doctrine, stating it was materially identical to a prior lawsuit Danner filed against TBPR in April 2006. The court found no ongoing proceeding seeking Danner’s law license suspension. Danner appealed, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. He sought en banc review, which was denied. On August 14, 2009, the Court of Appeals’ mandate was sent to the district court, finalizing the dismissal. The case is documented as Danner 3:08-0651 rel.doc.
