Case Name: James S. DAVIS, aka James S. David, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Auturo Cisneros; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-23
Citations: 459 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 10-56684
Parties: James S. DAVIS, aka James S. David, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Auturo Cisneros; et al., Defendants.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
James S. DAVIS, aka James S. David, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Auturo Cisneros; et al., Defendants.
No. 10-56684.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
Filed Nov. 23, 2011.
James S. Davis, pro se.
Jason K. Axe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John E. Nordin, II, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, William Guy Malcolm, Bankruptcy Counsel, Malcolm & Cisne-ros, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former federal prisoner James S. Davis, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging false imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Whitman v. Mineta, 541 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir.2008) (grant of a motion to dismiss); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir.1988) (denial of a motion to remand an action to state court). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.
Denial of Davis's motion to remand was proper because Davis's action was properly removed to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2); Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 231, 127 S.Ct. 881, 166 L.Ed.2d 819 (2007) ("[Cjertification is conclusive for purposes of removal, i.e., once certification and removal are effected, exclusive competence to adjudicate the case resides in the federal court, and that court may not remand the suit to the state court.").
The district court properly dismissed Davis's action because his false imprisonment claim was directly connected to his conviction on multiple federal offenses and his resulting sentence. See Compton v. Ide, 732 F.2d 1429, 1434 (9th Cir.1984), abrogated on other grounds by Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 97 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987) ("A prior conviction estops a party in a later civil suit from contesting facts necessarily established in the criminal proceeding.").
Davis's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Davis's motion to set oral argument, filed on September 16, 2011, is denied.
All remaining pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.