Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry EKEH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 214 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 06-50105
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry EKEH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry EKEH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50105.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006 .
Filed Dec. 12, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., David A. Kettel, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Henry Ekeh, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Henry Ekeh appeals pro se from an order denying his motion for expungement of allegedly inaccurate information from certain government records.
To the extent Ekeh relies on the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, for relief, the district court lacked jurisdiction because Ekeh did not exhaust all his administrative remedies. See Hewitt v. Grabicki, 794 F.2d 1373, 1377-78 (9th Cir.1986); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(3).
To the extent Ekeh seeks equitable ex-pungement of his files, we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion for expungement. See Fendler v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 554-55 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that equitable expungement was not necessary because there was not a real and immediate threat to the petitioner).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.