Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04208/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04208-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

LAL BHATIA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JANET 

BERRY, STEPHEN G. CORRIGAN, DOES 1-

50, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 08-4208 SBA 

Related Case: CR 05-0334 SBA 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

Docket 32, 36 

Plaintiff Lal Bhatia (“Bhatia”) filed the instant action seeking to enjoin the Government 

from prosecuting him in a criminal action currently pending before this Court. See United 

States v. Bhatia, et al., CR 05-334 SBA.1 He alleged that Assistant United States Attorney 

Stephen Corrigan (“AUSA Corrigan”) and FBI Agent Janet Berry, both of whom are assigned 

to the criminal action, engaged in “unlawful” and “bad faith” conduct in the course of pursuing 

criminal charges against him. On November 6, 2008, the Court dismissed the action for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal on April 

20, 2010. 

 Two motions are now before the Court. First, on April 7, 2010, Bhatia filed a “Motion 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) for the Court’s Manifest Failure to Consider the 

Unrefuted Material Facts and Dispositive Legal Arguments Establishing the Basis to Order 

AUSA Corrigan to Correct the Material Falsehoods Prior to Proceeding with CR-05-3334-

SBA. (Docket 32.) In short, Bhatia seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior dismissal ruling 

 1 Bhatia was convicted in a separate criminal action of fraud and money laundering in a 

case before Judge Claudia Wilken, and currently is in the custody of the Bureau of Prison on 

that conviction. See United States v. Bhatia, CR 04-40071 CW. 

Case 4:08-cv-04208-SBA Document 39 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

and demands that the Court order AUSA Corrigan to “correct the material falsehoods” before 

proceeding further with the criminal proceeding. (Mot. at 1.) However, because Bhatia filed 

his motion after filing a notice of appeal, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Griggs 

v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58-59 (1982) (“The filing of a notice of 

appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance-it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals 

and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the 

appeal”) (per curiam); Katzir’s Floor and Home Design, Inc. v. M-MLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 

1147 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 60(b) motion, 

which was filed after the notice of appeal had been filed, thereby stripping the district court of 

its jurisdiction.”) (citing Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

In addition, Bhatia’s motion violates Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), which requires a party 

seeking reconsideration to first seek leave to file such a motion, which he failed to do. The fact 

that Bhatia is pro se does not excuse him from complying with the rules governing cases in this 

Court. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings 

liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”) (per curiam). 

Even if the Court were to consider the merits of the motion, the Court would find that it has 

none, as Bhatia merely repeats the same factually unsupported arguments that the Court has 

already considered and rejected. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(c) (“No motion for leave to file a motion 

for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument”). 

 The second motion before the Court is Bhatia’s “Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedures (sic), Rule 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6), to Commence Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Asst. United States Attorney, Stephen G. Corrigan for His Unethical, Deceitful and 

Immoral Conduct in light of Ninth Circuit’s Opinion in Case No. 08-17784,” filed on May 5, 

2010. (Docket 36.) Under Rule 60(b), the Court may relieve a party of a judgment if “(5) the 

judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has 

been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or [¶] (6) any 

other reason that justifies relief.” For the reasons stated above, the Court lacks jurisdiction to 

Case 4:08-cv-04208-SBA Document 39 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

consider Bhatia’ motion to discipline AUSA Corrigan.2 Jurisdiction aside, the motion merely 

repeats Bhatia’s prior meritless filings in this and his other civil case, Bhatia v. Office of the 

United States Attorney, N. Dist. of Cal., C 09-4881 SBA. Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Bhatia’s motion for reconsideration (Docket 32) 

and motion under Rule 60(b) (Docket 36) are DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 32 and 

36. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 6/1/10 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 2 Though Bhatia filed the second motion after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, jurisdiction 

remains with the appellate court. See United States v. Foumai, 910 F.2d 617, 620 (9th Cir. 

1990) (“The jurisdiction of the court of appeals does not terminate until issuance of the 

mandate.”). 

Case 4:08-cv-04208-SBA Document 39 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAL BHATIA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV08-04208 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on June 2, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Lal Bhatia 97562-011 

Federal Detention Center 

5675 - 8th Street 

Camp Parks 

Dublin, CA 94568 

Dated: June 2, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-04208-SBA Document 39 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 4