JEFFREY DICKERSON V., No. 14-16554 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: JEFFREY A. DICKERSON, Attorney at Law Nevada State Bar No. 2690, ______________________________ No. 14-16554 JEFFREY A. DICKERSON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM* D.C. No. 2:14-ms-00057-GMN 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
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.
