Kenneth Haddix V.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: KENNETH LANCE HADDIX, No. 16-56048
attorney disciplinary matter,
______________________________ D.C. No. 2:16-ad-00095-GHK
KENNETH LANCE HADDIX, attorney
disciplinary matter, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and LOGAN,*** District Judge.
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
*
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).
***
The Honorable Steven Paul Logan, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
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,
2
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.
3