Lal Bhatia v. Stephen G. Corrigan;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAL BHATIA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN G. CORRIGAN; et al.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-15847
D.C. No. 4:07-CV-02054-CW
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
FILED
APR 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

08-15847 2
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Lal Bhatia appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging violation of his constitutional rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of
Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 2009) (immunity); Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d
1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to state a claim). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bhatia’s Bivens claims against
defendant Assistant United States Attorney Corrigan on absolute immunity
grounds because Corrigan’s alleged misconduct “was intimately associated with
the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 129 S. Ct.
855, 861 (2009) (discussing circumstances under which prosecutors are entitled to
absolute immunity) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To the extent
Bhatia’s allegations of a conspiracy to violate his civil rights are not barred on
immunity grounds, the allegations are conclusory and insufficient to support a
claim for relief. See Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th
Cir. 1989).
Contrary to Bhatia’s contention, the district court was not required to
discipline Corrigan sua sponte. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 11-6(a) (permitting, but

-- 2 of 4 --

08-15847 3
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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the
complaint because the deficiencies could not be cured and Bhatia had previously
amended the complaint. See Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733,
742 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying leave to amend where the deficiencies could not be cured and the
complaint had been previously amended).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying discovery before
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. See United States v. Kitsap
Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002) (“District courts have wide
latitude in controlling discovery, and their rulings will not be overturned in the
absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”); Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642
(9th Cir. 1980) (indicating that a district court need not grant a plaintiff discovery
to identify Doe defendants if it is clear that the complaint would be dismissed on
other grounds).

-- 3 of 4 --

08-15847 4
Bhatia’s motion to extend the time to file a reply brief, filed on October 15,
2009, is granted. The clerk shall file the reply brief received on November 18,
2009. Bhatia’s motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief, filed on
July 30, 2009, is denied as moot.
Bhatia’s request for judicial notice is denied.
Bhatia’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --