Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05581/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05581-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act

---

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. 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA, AND DOES 1-50, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-5581 SBA 

ORDER DENYING: (1) PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR IMPOSITION OF 

CRIMINAL PENALTIES; 

(2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

EXPEDITE RESOLUTION OF 

MOTION; AND (3) DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE ON MOTION

Docket 6, 11, 17, 22 

Related to: CR 05-0334 SBA

Plaintiff Lal Bhatia (“Bhatia”) and three other individuals presently are under federal 

indictment for wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). See

United States v. Bhatia, et al., CR 05-334 SBA. That case remains pending before this Court. 

On November 24, 2009, Bhatia, acting pro se, filed the instant action against the Office 

of the United States Attorney based on allegations that Assistant United States Attorney 

Stephen Corrigan (“AUSA Corrigan”) and Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent Janet Berry 

(“Berry”) presented “inaccurate” facts to the grand jury in the course of obtaining the 

indictment against him in the criminal matter. Though not entirely clear, it appears that Bhatia 

is alleging that AUSA Corrigan and Berry violated the Privacy Act by refusing to correct the 

“factual inaccuracies” that led to his indictment.1

 Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss 

 1 The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) requires agencies to ensure that any records 

used in “making any determination about any individual” are “maintain[ed] ... with such 

accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness 

to the individual in the determination.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5). Section 552a(d) requires 

agencies to entertain requests for amendment of records that are not “accurate, relevant, timely, 

or complete.” Id. § 552a(d)(2). 

Case 4:09-cv-05581-SBA Document 25 Filed 05/19/10 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 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of jurisdiction and 

for failure to state a claim, respectively. The motion is fully briefed and is scheduled for 

hearing on July 20, 2010. 

On February 10, 2010, Bhatia filed a “Motion to Assess Criminal Penalties Pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1) or in the Alternative to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 11-6 et seq. Against Asst. United States Attorney Stephen G. Corrigan.” (Docket 

6.) Under the Privacy Act, criminal penalties may be imposed against federal officials who 

willfully disclose a record in violation of the Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1). Under Local Rule 11-

6, the Court may initiate disciplinary proceedings against an attorney “[i]n the event that a 

Judge has cause to believe that an attorney has engaged in unprofessional conduct ....” 

Before considering the merits of Bhatia’s motion, the Court must first determine 

whether subject matter jurisdiction is present. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. 

State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988) (jurisdiction is a threshold 

inquiry before the adjudication on the merits). Given the pendency of Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it is premature to consider Bhatia’s request for 

imposition of criminal penalties under the Privacy Act. As for Bhatia’s alternative request to 

initiate disciplinary proceedings against AUSA Corrigan, the Court finds no factual basis to 

support such a request. Thus, Bhatia’s motion for imposition of criminal penalties or 

alternatively to initiate disciplinary proceedings is DENIED.2

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

 1. Bhatia’s Motion to Assess Criminal Penalties Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1) 

or in the Alternative to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-6 et 

seq. Against Asst. United States Attorney Stephen G. Corrigan (Docket 6) is DENIED. 

 2. Bhatia’s Motion to Expedite Assessment of Criminal Penalties Against AUSA 

Corrigan (Docket 22) is DENIED as moot. 

 2 Defendant filed its opposition to Bhatia’s motion for imposition of criminal penalties 

on May 13, 2010. In light of the Court’s ruling, Bhatia’s related motion for expedited 

resolution of his motion and Defendant’s two motions to set a briefing schedule on the same 

are DENIED as moot. 

Case 4:09-cv-05581-SBA Document 25 Filed 05/19/10 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 

3. Defendant’s Administrative Motions to Set Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff’s 

Motion (Docket 11, 17) are DENIED as moot. 

 4. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket 12, 16) presently 

scheduled for July 20, 2010 is VACATED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), 

the Court will adjudicate the motion without oral argument. The Court notes that since the 

motion has been fully briefed, no further “memoranda, papers or letters may be filed [in 

connection with the motion to dismiss] without prior Court approval.” Civ. L.R. 7-3(d) 

(emphasis added). Failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

 5. This Order terminates Docket 6, 11, 17 and 22. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 17, 2010 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-05581-SBA Document 25 Filed 05/19/10 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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAL BHATIA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-05581 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 May 19, 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 Reg. No. 97562-011 

TCI- Taft 

P.O. Box 7001 

Taft, CA 93268 

Dated: May 19, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-05581-SBA Document 25 Filed 05/19/10 Page 4 of 4