OpenJurist

914 F2d 263 United States v. Bagha

914 F.2d 263

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Victor BAGHA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 89-50393.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 18, 1990.*
Decided Sept. 21, 1990.

Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and HUG and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Victor Bagha appeals pro se and in forma pauperis the district court's order denying his request for free copies of excerpts from the record of his fraud convictions. He also appeals the denial of his motion for recusal of the district court judge.

Bagha sought certain documents to aid his appeal of a prior decision of the district court on a Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) motion. However, this court has already affirmed the denial of Bagha's Rule 35(b) motion. See United States v. Bagha, No. 89-50049, slip op. (9th Cir. May 14, 1990) (unpublished disposition). Without a pending case, there is no basis for Bagha's request for free copies of documents. See United States v. Connors, 904 F.2d 535, 536 (9th Cir.1990); 28 U.S.C. Secs. 753(f), 2250. Because Bagha has lost his eligibility to obtain free copies of documents, this claim is moot. See Sample v. Borg, 870 F.2d 563, 563 (9th Cir.1989) (claim moot when relief no longer available); see also In re City of El Paso, Texas, 887 F.2d 1103, 1105-06 (D.C.Cir.1989) (per curiam) (appeal from collateral discovery proceeding rendered moot by disposition of primary proceeding). We thus have no occasion to consider the motion for recusal. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the matter as moot. See Sample, 870 F.2d at 563.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Bagha's request for oral argument is denied

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3