Oliver Hilsenrath v. United States of America

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OLIVER HILSENRATH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-15092
D.C. No. CV-07-05100-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Oliver Hilsenrath appeals pro se the district court’s Order dismissing his
action to enjoin the United States from returning to Switzerland proof of service of
process of a Swiss order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our
FILED
NOV 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-15092 -2-
review is de novo, In re Arnold & Baker Farms (Arnold & Baker Farms v. United
States), 85 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because the United States
Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs already had served the
Swiss order on Hilsenrath in compliance with the Treaty Between the United States
of America and the Swiss Confederation on Mutual Assistance in Criminal
Matters, and there was no effective action for the district court to take. See Tate v.
University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, 606 F.3d 631, 634 (9th Cir. 2010)
(claim is moot when there is no present controversy as to which effective relief can
be granted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --