Securities and Exchange Commission v. Indigenous Global Development Corporation

* 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
INDIGENOUS GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Defendant,
and
DENI G. LEONARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-17116
D.C. No. 3:06-cv-05600-JCS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2010 **
Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Deni Leonard appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in this
civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), alleging Leonard violated various federal securities laws. He does not,
however, directly challenge the violations or the sanctions imposed. Rather, he
contends the SEC engaged in discrimination and misconduct that requires reversal
and remand for trial. We reject that contention and affirm.
Leonard’s claims of racial discrimination fail because they are vague,
conclusory and without factual support. Accordingly, they are “not entitled to an
assumption of truth.” See Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir.
2009) (noting allegations of systematic discrimination by government officials
without any factual content are conclusory and inadequate). His contention that he
was wrongfully advised not to hire an attorney fails because there is no evidence
that such a recommendation was made other than in an unrelated proceeding.
We also reject Leonard’s claims of discovery abuse. First, parties are
required only to produce documents for inspection and are not obligated to produce
copies. See Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 921 n.4 (9th Cir. 1996). Second, the
SEC attorneys properly construed Leonard’s list of questions as interrogatories and
duly responded to each question pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Rule 33(b).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Finally, we reject Leonard’s “jurisdictional question” related to the SEC’s
authority to obtain documents from a nonparty tribal company. Leonard has not
demonstrated that the government’s investigative powers do not extend to tribal
entities. See EEOC v. Karuk Tribe Housing Authority, 260 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th
Cir. 2001) (“Indian tribes do not . . . enjoy sovereign immunity from suits brought
by the federal government.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --