Court Opinion

ID: 9954055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 17:01:08.899702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:46.323391
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 25 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAKESH DHINGRA,                                 No.    22-16774

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-02207-CRB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES ESPOSITO, “Chuck”; ELIINA
STEPHENSON, AKA Eliina N. Belenkiy,
AKA Eliina Keitelman; FBI DIRECTOR,
Washington, DC; BRIAN STRETCH,
AUSA; JEROME MATTHEWS, FPD; TOM
C. SHARPE; ABDUL RAFIQI, FBI;
FRANZ P. CORRALES, FBI; NANCY L.
MAY, FBI; RAZI SHABAN, FBI; SIMONA
M. ASINOWSKI, FBI,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                   Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 20, 2024**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Plaintiff-Appellant Rakesh Dhingra appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his case as frivolous. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

based on the district court’s entry of final judgment. We affirm.

      1.     In 2002, a jury convicted Rakesh Dhingra of using the internet to

solicit sexual activity from a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). We

affirmed Dhingra’s conviction two years later. United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d

557, 559 (9th Cir. 2004). Dhingra then launched “repetitive and baseless” efforts

to overturn his conviction post-appeal. See United States v. Dhingra, 01-cr-40144-

SBA, Dkt. No. 193, at 1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021). He has also filed multiple civil

actions indirectly challenging his conviction, which the district court has dismissed

as “frivolous.” See Dhingra v. United States, No. C 16-03803 SBA, 2016 WL

5394117, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016), aff’d, 2017 WL 6028628, at *1 (9th Cir.

May 17, 2017); Dhingra v. Belenkiy, No. C 16-06827 SBA, 2017 WL 995366, at

*3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2017); Dhingra v. United States, No. C 16-03803 SBA,

2019 WL 248907, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2019).

      2.     A “district court must dismiss a [plaintiff’s] in forma pauperis case ‘at

any time’ if the court determines that the action is (i) ‘frivolous or malicious’; (ii)

‘fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted’; or (iii) ‘seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.’” O’Neal v. Price, 531

F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)); see also

                                           2
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“It is . . . clear that section

1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma

pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). We review the district court’s

denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion. See Yakama Indian Nation v.

Washington Dep't of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999).

      The district court properly dismissed Dhingra’s present case as “frivolous”

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Dhingra again alleges that “the victim of his

crime wasn’t a minor and was a decoy working with an FBI ‘Cyber Squad,’”

violating his constitutional rights to due process. Dhingra continues to provide “no

evidence to support this fiction.” Further, Dhingra presents no newly discovered

or previously unavailable evidence that might warrant further review of his

previously rejected constitutional claims. See Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557; Dhingra,

2016 WL 5394117, aff’d, 2017 WL 6028628; Dhingra, 2019 WL 248907. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Dhingra’s frivolous case

without leave to amend.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           3