Case Name: James M. CULLITON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debra SONDERMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 693
Docket Number: No. 05-15569
Parties: James M. CULLITON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debra SONDERMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
James M. CULLITON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debra SONDERMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-15569.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
James M. Culliton, Saugus, CA, pro se.
Joseph E. Maloney, Esq., David T. Shelledy, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that James Culliton is the sole appellant in this case.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James Culliton appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in Culliton's action challenging the Department of the Interior's decision to debar him from contracting with the United States government from October 2002 through February 2004. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss the action as moot.
This action became moot when Culliton's temporary debarment, based on a criminal conviction, ended in 2004. See GTE California, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 39 F.3d 940, 942 (9th Cir.1994). The district court should have dismissed this action, and should not have issued summary judgment for the defendants in January 2005.
We therefore vacate the district court's decision and direct it to dismiss the action as moot. See Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789, 799 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc).
VACATED AND REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the action as moot.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.