In Re: Daniel David Dydzak V.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 19 2013
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 DANIEL DAVID DYDZAK, No. 11-56028
D.C. No. 2:10-mc-00270-GHK
DANIEL DAVID DYDZAK,
Appellant. MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Daniel David Dydzak appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing
reciprocal discipline on him based on his disbarment from the California State Bar,
affirmed by the California Supreme Court. 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 affirm.
*
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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing reciprocal
discipline against Dydzak 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 stipulated 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) (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 factual
findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness absent a showing of error).
We do not address the denial of Dydzak’s motion for disqualification of
Judge King because Dydzak merely raised the issue in his brief without supporting
it with any argument. See Am. Int’l Enters., Inc. v. FDIC, 3 F.3d 1263, 1266 n.5
(9th Cir. 1993).
Dydzak’s contentions regarding the district court’s docket are unpersuasive.
Dydzak’s requests for judicial notice and a stay of appellate proceedings, set
forth in his opening brief, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-56028