Summary
affirming district court's dismissal of action seeking relief in connection with a federal criminal prosecution against the plaintiff; finding no extraordinary circumstances alleged that warranted interference with the federal criminal proceedings
Summary of this case from Halajian v. United StatesOpinion
No. 08-17784.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 20, 2010.
Lai Bhatia, Taft, CA, pro se.
Claire Truxaw Cormier, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:08-cv-04208-SBA.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Lai Bhatia appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action seeking relief in connection with a federal criminal prosecution against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and may affirm on any ground. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 982 n. 19 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc); Levine v. Vilsack, 587 F.8d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting interference with the federal criminal proceedings against Bhatia. See Ackerman v. Int'l Longshoremen's Warehousemen's Union, 187 F.2d 860, 868 (9th Cir. 1951) (stating that federal courts may enjoin criminal proceedings in federal courts only if there are extraordinary circumstances). Bhatia is not entitled to mandamus or declaratory relief. The district court properly denied Bhatia's motion for summary judgment as moot after the court dismissed the action.
Contrary to Bhatia's contention, the district court was not required to discipline defendant Assistant United States Attorney Corrigan sua sponte. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. ll-6(a) (permitting, but not requiring, district courts to discipline attorneys who have engaged in unprofessional conduct); see also Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that district courts are authorized to implement rules governing attorney discipline).
AFFIRMED.