Jeffrey Dickerson V. , 677 F. App'x 310 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: JEFFREY A. DICKERSON, No. 14-16554
Attorney at Law Nevada State Bar No.
2690, D.C. No. 2:14-ms-00057-GMN
______________________________
JEFFREY A. DICKERSON, MEMORANDUM*
Petitioner-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey A. Dickerson, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
order imposing reciprocal discipline on him on the basis of his suspension from the
Nevada State Bar. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
an abuse of discretion, In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
*
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).
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing reciprocal
discipline against Dickerson 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 led to his suspension from the bar, or that grave injustice
would result from the imposition of reciprocal discipline. See In re Kramer, 282
F.3d 721, 724-25 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the limited circumstances under
which an attorney subject to discipline by another court can avoid a federal court’s
imposition of reciprocal discipline, and setting forth attorney’s burden of proof);
see also D. Nev. L.R. IA 11-7(e)(3) (an attorney respondent “must set forth facts
establishing one or more of the [elements precluding reciprocal discipline] by clear
and convincing evidence” (alteration added)).
We reject as without merit Dickerson’s contention that he district court
violated his right to due process.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-16554