FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY J. BURRIOLA, No. 12-16955
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00168-LRH-
WGC
v.
STATE OF NEVADA; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Anthony J. Burriola appeals pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations
as a sanction under its inherent powers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1131, 1140 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing terminating
sanctions against Burriola after giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard
because Burriola willfully and in bad faith filed an unauthorized declaration on
behalf of a correctional officer purporting to admit illegal conduct against Burriola,
failed to justify his actions, and tried to withdraw the declaration without recanting
the false statements underlying it. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-
45 (1991) (recognizing courts’ inherent power to impose sanctions, including
outright dismissal, for conduct that abuses the judicial process).
We reject Burriola’s contentions that defendants admitted to filing
fraudulent documents in conspiring against him, that correctional officer Jenkins
was “found guilty of terroristic threats” to Burriola, that the district court did not
consider his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, that
the magistrate judge conspired with defendants or improperly advocated the
imposition of sanctions, that the imposition of sanctions denied him access to
courts and due process, and that the Uniform Commercial Code and various
principles of international contract law somehow authorized his conduct.
We do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal regarding the
alleged denial of library services at Burriola’s current prison. See Padgett v.
2 12-16955
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Burriola’s “Motion for Leave to Use Original Record,” filed on April 19,
2013, is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(c).
Defendants’ requests to strike portions of Burriola’s opening brief and to
impose further sanctions upon him, set forth in their answering brief, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-16955