Kenneth Haddix V.

Ninth Circuit

Kenneth Haddix V.

702 F. App'x 648

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 2017

Docket16-56048

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 702 F. App'x 648 (Kenneth Haddix V.) 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

Kenneth Haddix V., 702 F. App'x 648 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

After the California Supreme Court disbarred Kenneth Haddix, the district court imposed a reciprocal discipline of disbarment. We affirm.

1.“[A] federal court’s imposition of reciprocal discipline on a member of its bar based on a state’s disciplinary adjudication is proper unless an independent review of the record reveals: (1) a deprivation of due process; (2) insufficient proof of misconduct; or (3) grave injustice which would result from the imposition of such discipline.” In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2002). Haddix was not denied due process in the state proceedings. He received notice of the charges against him and the opportunity to challenge them in the state bar court. See In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011). Haddix argues that the trial judge in the state bar proceeding was biased. But, the record indicates that the judge asked relevant questions about Haddix’s disciplinary history, health conditions, and his knowledge of and compliance with various probation terms. Nothing in the record suggests bias.

2. There was sufficient proof in the state bar proceeding establishing Haddix’s misconduct. He stipulated to facts establishing his probation violations. Haddix suggests the district court should have investigated his claim that he was falsely accused of the misconduct that gave rise to his probation. But, the district court properly declined to do so because it “would be drawn into an extensive inquiry requiring it to sit in review of a [state court] judgment.” In re Rosenthal, 854 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

3. The reciprocal discipline does not cause a grave injustice. Haddix contends that his probation violations were the result of his ill health and that of his wife. But, the state bar court considered this argument, finding that Haddix’s probation violations largely predated any health problems, and that medical statements presented at trial fell short of establishing “a nexus between the violations and any prior health problems.” These factual findings receive a “presumption of correctness.” In re Rosenthal, 854 F.2d at 1188.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

After the California Supreme Court disbarred Kenneth Haddix, the district court imposed a reciprocal discipline of disbarment. We affirm.

1.“[A] federal court’s imposition of reciprocal discipline on a member of its bar based on a state’s disciplinary adjudication is proper unless an independent review of the record reveals: (1) a deprivation of due process; (2) insufficient proof of misconduct; or (3) grave injustice which would result from the imposition of such discipline.” In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2002). Haddix was not denied due process in the state proceedings. He received notice of the charges against him and the opportunity to challenge them in the state bar court. See In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011). Haddix argues that the trial judge in the state bar proceeding was biased. But, the record indicates that the judge asked relevant questions about Haddix’s disciplinary history, health conditions, and his knowledge of and compliance with various probation terms. Nothing in the record suggests bias.

2. There was sufficient proof in the state bar proceeding establishing Haddix’s misconduct. He stipulated to facts establishing his probation violations. Haddix suggests the district court should have investigated his claim that he was falsely accused of the misconduct that gave rise to his probation. But, the district court properly declined to do so because it “would be drawn into an extensive inquiry requiring it to sit in review of a [state court] judgment.” In re Rosenthal, 854 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

3. The reciprocal discipline does not cause a grave injustice. Haddix contends that his probation violations were the result of his ill health and that of his wife. But, the state bar court considered this argument, finding that Haddix’s probation violations largely predated any health problems, and that medical statements presented at trial fell short of establishing “a nexus between the violations and any prior health problems.” These factual findings receive a “presumption of correctness.” In re Rosenthal, 854 F.2d at 1188.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 F. App'x 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-haddix-v-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack