Case Name: Gordon PEKRUL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul K. CHARLTON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-14
Citations: 234 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 06-16032
Parties: Gordon PEKRUL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul K. CHARLTON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 617–617

Head Matter:
Gordon PEKRUL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul K. CHARLTON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-16032.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 14, 2007.
Gordon Pekrul, Scottsdale, AZ, pro se.
Richard G. Patrick, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gordon Pekrul appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
Pekrul provided no authority to support his theory that a private individual has a constitutional right to appear before a grand jury absent approval of the federal prosecutor's office. Cf. Charge to Grand Jury, 30 F.Cas. 992, 994 (C.C.Cal.1872) (No. 18,255) (instructing grand jurors not to allow private individuals to present accusations). Nor did Pekrul point to a statutory or common law source for the claimed right. Therefore the district court did not err when it dismissed his action for failure to state a claim.
Pekrul's contention that he has a right to the district court's reason for its decision is incorrect. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), "[findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule 12." See Barton v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir.2005) (affirming Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a) requirements).
Pekrul's remaining contentions also lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. We deny Pekrul's request for publication.