FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2010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
LAL BHATIA, No. 08-17784
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:08-cv-04208-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Lal 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
*
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).
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.3d 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. 11-6(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.
2 08-17784