Opinion
No. 06-50105.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 12, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., David A. Kettel, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Henry Ekeh, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Dickran M. Tevrizian, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-01-00124-DT-01.
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Henry Ekeh appeals pro se from an order denying his motion for expungement of allegedly inaccurate information from certain government records.
To the extent Ekeh relies on the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, for relief, the district court lacked jurisdiction because Ekeh did not exhaust all his administrative remedies. See Hewitt v. Grabicki 794 F.2d 1373, 1377-78 (9th Cir. 1986); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(3).
To the extent Ekeh seeks equitable expungement of his files, we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion for expungement. See Fendler v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 554-55 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that equitable expungement was not necessary because there was not a real and immediate threat to the petitioner).