Hilsenrath v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Hilsenrath v. United States

402 F. App'x 302

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 2, 2010

Docket08-15092

StatusUnpublished

This text of 402 F. App'x 302 (Hilsenrath v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hilsenrath v. United States, 402 F. App'x 302 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Oliver Hilsenrath appeals pro se the district court’s Order dismissing his action to *303 enjoin the United States from returning to Switzerland proof of service of process of a Swiss order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo, In re Arnold & Baker Farms (Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States), 85 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because the United States Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs already had served the Swiss order on Hilsenrath in compliance with the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and there was no effective action for the district court to take. See Tate v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, 606 F.3d 631, 634 (9th Cir.2010) (claim is moot when there is no present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Oliver Hilsenrath appeals pro se the district court’s Order dismissing his action to *303 enjoin the United States from returning to Switzerland proof of service of process of a Swiss order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo, In re Arnold & Baker Farms (Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States), 85 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because the United States Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs already had served the Swiss order on Hilsenrath in compliance with the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and there was no effective action for the district court to take. See Tate v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, 606 F.3d 631, 634 (9th Cir.2010) (claim is moot when there is no present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

In Re Arnold & Baker Farms, Debtor. Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States of America, on Behalf of the United States Farmers Home Administration, Arnold & Baker Farms, and Western Cotton Services Corp. v. United States of America, on Behalf of the United States Farmers Home Administration, Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States of America, on Behalf of the United States Farmers Home Administration, Western Cotton Services Corp.

85 F.3d 1415 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Tate v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada

606 F.3d 631 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 F. App'x 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilsenrath-v-united-states-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack