22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T43f,MEMORANDUM Oliver Hilsenrath appeals pro se the district court’s Order dismissing his action to enjoin the United States from returning to Switzerland proof of service of process of a Swiss order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Our review is de novo, In re Arnold & Baker Farms (Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States), 85 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because the United States Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs already had served the Swiss order on Hilsenrath in compliance with the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and there was no effective action for the district court to take. See Tate v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, 606 F.3d 631, 634 (9th Cir.2010) (claim is moot when there is no present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T46c,

MEMORANDUM

Oliver Hilsenrath appeals pro se the district court’s Order dismissing his action to enjoin the United States from returning to Switzerland proof of service of process of a Swiss order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Our review is de novo, In re Arnold & Baker Farms (Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States), 85 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because the United States Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs already had served the Swiss order on Hilsenrath in compliance with the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and there was no effective action for the district court to take. See Tate v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, 606 F.3d 631, 634 (9th Cir.2010) (claim is moot when there is no present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.