FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 31 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISHNA REDDY, No. 12-56602
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02406-CAS-JC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WEBMEDX, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Krishna Reddy appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her
employment action alleging federal and state law for discrimination, retaliation,
and wrongful termination on the basis of a vexatious litigant order issued against
her in a prior action in 2003 (the “2003 Vexatious Litigant Order”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469-70
(9th Cir. 1990) (jurisdiction exists to review a pre-filing order before any pleading
is rejected under it because it is “a kind of injunction which affects the rights of
litigants”). We review for an abuse of discretion, id. at 469, and we affirm.
In a previous appeal, this court affirmed the district court’s imposition of the
2003 Vexatious Litigant Order against Reddy, requiring her to post a $5,000 bond
and to obtain the district court’s permission before filing any future actions against
any defendant in the Central District of California. See Reddy v. Stotler, No.
03-56283, 114 F. App’x 905 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2004). Because Reddy failed to
post bond or to obtain the district court’s permission before filing this action in
compliance with the 2003 Vexatious Litigant Order, the district court did not abuse
its discretion by dismissing the action without prejudice. Cf. In re Fillbach, 223
F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming dismissal of a petition filed in
district court to try to circumvent the bankruptcy court’s vexatious litigant order).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reddy’s motions
for reconsideration, for a transfer of the action to the Northern District of
California, and for disqualification of all but one of the judges of the Central
District of California because Reddy failed to establish grounds for such relief. See
C.D. Cal. R. 7-18 (motion for reconsideration); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
2 12-56602
Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth
standard of review and factors for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)); see also Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d
495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and factors for
transfer of an action for improper venue); Voigt v. Savell, 70 F.3d 1552, 1565 (9th
Cir. 1995) (setting forth standard of review and factors warranting disqualification
of a judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455).
We reject Reddy’s contentions regarding the recusal of all “Republican
President-nominated” judges on this court and district court judges who are
allegedly biased against her; the alleged non-existence of the 2003 Vexatious
Litigant Order; the invalidity of various prior vexatious litigant orders against her;
defendants’ alleged intentional misrepresentation of the facts and the law in this
action; and the reassignment of this action to a different district court judge.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-56602