NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES G. KINNEY, No. 17-56356
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-05342-GW-SS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FRANCES ROTHSCHILD; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Charles G. Kinney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging violations of federal law. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for
failure to comply with a pre-filing vexatious litigant order. In re Fillbach, 223
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Kinney’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kinney’s action
because Kinney failed to comply with the vexatious litigant order entered against
him. See id. at 1091 (litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit
in a different court).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kinney’s action
without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper
when amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kinney’s motion to
vacate or reconsider the district court’s dismissal order because Kinney failed to
establish any grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or.
v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of
review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60).
We reject as meritless Kinney’s contention that the magistrate judge lacked
authority to transfer this case and to enter other interlocutory orders. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A).
Appellees Clark, Marcus, and Chomsky’s motion to be dismissed from this
appeal (Docket Entry No. 12) is granted.
2 17-56356
The parties’ requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13, and 14)
are granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-56356