From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bhatia v. Office of U.S. Attorney

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 2, 2013
507 F. App'x 649 (9th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 11-16250 D.C. No. 4:09-cv-05581-SBA

01-02-2013

LAL BHATIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Defendant - Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Lal Bhatia appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, in connection with his federal criminal indictment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Rouse v U.S. Dep't of State, 567 F.3d 408, 414 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bhatia's claims under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(d)(2) and (e)(5) because the records he sought to amend were exempt from these Privacy Act requirements under Department of Justice ("DOJ") regulations. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.81(a), (d)(3), (8); see also Alexander v. United States, 787 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that plaintiff was "barred from taking advantage of the civil remedies afforded by the Privacy Act" as a result of DOJ regulations exempting arrest records maintained by Federal Bureau of Investigation's Identification Division Records System).

The district court properly dismissed Bhatia's claim under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(6) because Bhatia failed to allege facts showing that the information provided to the grand jury was not accurate. See Rose v. United States, 905 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 1990) (listing elements of Privacy Act claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhatia's motion to compel discovery or by staying discovery. See Laub v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (discovery rulings should only be disturbed on clear showing of actual and substantial prejudice).

Bhatia's pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Bhatia v. Office of U.S. Attorney

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 2, 2013
507 F. App'x 649 (9th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Bhatia v. Office of U.S. Attorney

Case Details

Full title:LAL BHATIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 2, 2013

Citations

507 F. App'x 649 (9th Cir. 2013)