Case Name: Deepak VOHRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and LCSW, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-27
Citations: 165 F. App'x 542
Docket Number: No. 05-56339; D.C. No. CV-03-01829-RGK
Parties: Deepak VOHRA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and LCSW, Defendant.
Judges: Before T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 165
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
Deepak VOHRA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and LCSW, Defendant.
No. 05-56339.
D.C. No. CV-03-01829-RGK.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 23, 2006.
Decided Jan. 27, 2006.
Deepak Vohra, Orange, CA, pro se.
Byron J. Beam, Beam Brobeck & West LLP, Laura Karen Sitar, Bonne Bridges Mueller O’Keefe and Nichols, Santa Ana, CA, Deborah P. Knefel, Anaheim City Attorney’s Office, Anaheim, CA, James J. Kjar, Reback McAndrews & Kjar, Manhattan Beach, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this ’case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
A review of appellant's response to the order to show cause and the record indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.