In Re: JEFFREY THOMAS, No. 21-55462 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: JEFFREY GRAY THOMAS, attorney disciplinary matter, ______________________________ JEFFREY GRAY THOMAS, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-55462 D.C. No. 2:20-ad-00779-PSG MEMORANDUM* Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Jeffrey Gray Thomas, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing reciprocal discipline following his involuntary inactive enrollment by the State Bar of California. 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 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 district court did not abuse its discretion in disbarring Thomas in the Central District of California because Thomas did not meet his burden to show that he was deprived of due process, that proof of misconduct was insufficient, 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 in which an attorney can avoid a federal court’s imposition of reciprocal discipline and setting forth attorney’s burden of proof). Thomas’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 6) and motion to file a late brief (Docket Entry No. 7) are granted. The Clerk will file the opening brief submitted on August 7, 2021 (Docket Entry No. 4). AFFIRMED. 2 21-55462

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.