PRICE V MCGRATH

Filing 920060313

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERESA MACIAS, both individually, in her own right, and as successor in interest to Miguel Sanchez, her deceased son, Plaintiff, and JEFF DOMINIC PRICE, Appellant, v. JOSEPH MCGRATH; CAL TERHUNE, Director California Department of Corrections; ROBERT L. AYERS; JOEL PENA; M. D. FOX, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-16464 D.C. No. CV-01-00806-PJH ORDER

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 14, 2006--San Francisco, California Filed March 13, 2006 Before: Barry G. Silverman, Susan P. Graber, and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.

2527

2528

PRICE v. MCGRATH

COUNSEL Jeff Dominic Price, Santa Monica, California, for appellant.

ORDER Jeff Dominic Price, counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Teresa Macias in the companion case, Macias v. McGrath, No. 0415968,1 appeals the district court's published post-judgment Order Re Sanctions and Referral for Attorney Discipline, sanctioning him $1,500 for the unauthorized practice of law under Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 111(a), -8. See Macias v. McGrath, 322 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (N.D. Cal. 2004). Price was not afforded all of the procedural protections required for due process in the context of criminal contempt proceedings. See F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2001) ("We hold that when a court uses its inherent powers to impose sanctions that are criminal in nature, it must provide the same due process protections that would be available in a criminal contempt proceeding."). We vacate the order without prejudice to future prosecution or disciplinary proceedings for the alleged violation. VACATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

We have resolved the appeal in a separate memorandum disposition, filed this date.

1

PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE--U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST--SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2006 Thomson/West.