Brian Vossler v. Alejandro Nicolas Mayorkas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA BRIAN VOSSLER, as an individual; Plaintiff, 8:25CV525 vs. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Department of Homeland Security; Defendant. This matter comes before the court upon information that Gary R. Carlin, counsel for Plaintiff, is subject to public discipline in California that he has not reported to this court. The court learned of this discipline while verifying the California bar status of Mr. Carlin's co-counsel, William B. Welden, after Mr. Welden informed chambers staff that he had been suspended from the practice of law. The State Bar of California's records reflect that disciplinary charges were filed against Mr. Carlin on May 9, 2025. Those charges were resolved by stipulation, approved on November 10, 2025, in which Mr. Carlin admitted culpability for failing to act with reasonable diligence, disobeying a court order, and failing to properly maintain client trust funds and records. On February 4, 2026, the Supreme Court of California suspended him from the practice of law for one year, stayed execution of the suspension, and placed him on probation for one year subject to conditions. See In re Gary Richard Carlin on Discipline, No. S294224 (Cal. Feb. 4, 2026).1 1 Courts may take judicial notice of matters of public record, including information from attorney registration and disciplinary bodies, including their internet databases. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); see also Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc., 327 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1042 (E.D. Mo. 2004); Brady v. Wal– Mart Stores, Inc., No. 03–CV–3843 (JO), 2010 WL 4392566, at *4 n. 9 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2010); Grant v. Viano, No. 298215, 2011 WL 4375084, at *5 n. 3. (Mich.App. Sept. 20, 2011). According to the License Mr. Carlin completed his admission to practice in this court on October 22, 2025, before the discipline was imposed. (Filing No. 50). As such, he took the oath of admission and is required to comply with the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct and this court's local rules. NEGenR 1.7(b), 1.8(a). Those rules require an attorney admitted to practice in this court to "promptly report the following in writing to the clerk: disbarment, suspension, public reprimand, or other public discipline imposed by any other court or jurisdiction," and to include "a copy of the judgment or order imposing the discipline." NEGenR 1.8(c)(1). More than seven months have passed since the Supreme Court of California imposed discipline, and Mr. Carlin has not reported it to the Clerk. An attorney admitted to practice in this court is subject to discipline if the attorney is publicly disciplined by another court. NEGenR 1.8(c)(2)(A). Whether to impose reciprocal discipline, however, is a determination reserved to the chief judge or a district judge the chief judge designates, after written notice and an opportunity to show cause. NEGenR 1.8(c)(2)(B)-(C). Before determining whether to refer this matter to the chief judge for that purpose or for additional discipline, the court will afford Mr. Carlin an opportunity to address these matters further. The court also notes that Mr. Carlin remains on probation in California, subject to conditions that include compliance with the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act. The court has separately recommended that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Filing No. 84). Mr. Carlin's failure to report his discipline, together with the circumstances giving rise to that recommendation, may bear on his compliance with the terms of his probation. He will accordingly be ordered to also show cause as to why these circumstances should not be reported to the State Bar of California. Status, Disciplinary and Administrative History of the Supreme Court of California, Attorney Gary R. Carlin’s disciplinary charges were filed on May 9, 2025 at State Bar Court 25-O-30590, which resulted in “Discipline, probation; no actual susp.” See https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/44945 (last visited September 25, 2026). The court takes judicial notice of his discipline. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) On or before October 9, 2026, Gary R. Carlin shall report his stayed suspension and probation, in writing, to the Clerk of Court, together with copies of the orders imposing that discipline, as required by NEGenR 1.8(c)(1). 2) On or before October 9, 2026, Mr. Carlin shall show cause, in writing, why: a) He did not timely report his discipline to the Clerk of Court as required by NEGenR 1.8(c)(1); b) This matter should not be referred to Chief District Judge Brian C. Buescher, or another district judge he may otherwise designate, for consideration of reciprocal discipline under NEGenR 1.8(c)(2), or for additional discipline for failure to report, including permanent disbarment from this court or other sanctions, and any further proceedings deemed appropriate under NEGenR 1.8; and, c) The court should not transmit a copy of this order, the Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 84), and any response Mr. Carlin files to the State Bar of California. 3) Mr. Carlin is advised that failure to comply with this order may result in referral to the Chief Judge and transmittal to the State Bar of California without further notice. Dated this 25th day of September, 2026. BY THE COURT: s/ Ryan C. Carson United States Magistrate Judge