FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PADAM KUMAR KHANNA, No. 08-17249
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:07-CV-05136-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BALJIT RANDHAWA and JAGJIT
SINGH RANDHAWA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Padam Kumar Khanna, a disbarred California attorney, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants conspired with the State Bar of California to deprive him of his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
attorney’s license. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for default judgment. Eitel v.
McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Khanna’s motion
for default judgment given the lack of merit to the substantive claims, the
insufficiency of the complaint, and the amount of money at stake. See id. at 1471-
72 (setting forth factors that courts may consider in determining whether to enter
default judgment); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 1980) (per
curiam) (no abuse its discretion in denying motion for default judgment where
substantive claims lacked merit).
Khanna’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-17249