N v. James Holcomb , 467 F. App'x 606 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: JAMES BYRON HOLCOMB, No. 10-35796
D.C. Nos. 2:07-rd-0001-RSL;
JAMES BYRON HOLCOMB, 3:10-mc-05020
Respondent - Appellant.
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
James Byron Holcomb appeals pro se from the district court’s order
imposing reciprocal discipline on him based on Holcomb’s suspension from the
practice of law by the Washington Supreme Court. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing reciprocal
discipline against Holcomb because he failed to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that he was deprived of due process; that there was insufficient proof of
the misconduct that resulted in his stipulated suspension from the state bar; or that
grave injustice would result from the imposition of reciprocal discipline. See In re
Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2002) (listing limited grounds for an attorney
subject to discipline by another court to avoid a federal court’s imposition of
reciprocal discipline, and setting forth attorney’s burden); see also In re Rosenthal,
854 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (state court disciplinary findings
are entitled to a presumption of correctness absent a showing of error).
Holcomb’s remaining contentions, including those concerning reciprocal
discipline being barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-35796