JAIRO PEDROZA V. ALBERTO GONZALEZ, No. 11-55784 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIRO BRAVO PEDROZA, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-55784 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01766-LABWVG v. ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ; et al., MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry Alan Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Jairo Bravo Pedroza appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 288 (1971), alleging Fifth Amendment and * 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). malicious prosecution claims in connection with defendants decision to commence removal proceedings against him and his detention incident to those proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Vestron, Inc. v. Home Box Office Inc., 839 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Pedroza s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). See Reno v. Am.-Arab AntiDiscrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482-88 (1999). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pedroza leave to amend because further amendment would have been futile in light of the jurisdictional bar. See L.A. Mem l Coliseum Comm n v. City of Oakland, 717 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1983) (setting forth standard of review). The district court properly declined to file the post-judgment motions Pedroza submitted after filing his notice of appeal. See Vroman v. United States, 997 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 11-55784

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.