FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 5 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10335
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:94-cr-00328-LKK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES H. SANDERS and ROBERT M.
WRIGHT,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
James H. Sanders and Robert M. Wright appeal pro se from the district
court’s vexatious litigant order and denial of Wright’s motion for a default
judgment. Because this order was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or
*
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).
the collateral order doctrine, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Sanders and Wright contend that they are entitled to a default judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 because neither the government nor the district court has
opposed their motions for transfer of venue and recusal of the district court judge.
Sanders and Wright also contend that the district court abused its discretion by
issuing a vexatious litigant order with regard to Wright. Contrary to their
contentions, neither the denial of a default judgment in a criminal case nor the
vexatious litigant order constituted an appealable order. See Molski v. Evergreen
Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, Wright and
Sanders’s contentions regarding the change in venue and recusal of the district
court judge lack merit.
Appellants’ motions for leave to file a supplemental appendix to the reply
brief and to withdraw miscellaneous notices are granted.
Appellants’ motions for “summary reversal” of the district court’s order and
for further consideration by a merits panel of appellants’ “motion for summary
ruling” are denied as moot.
DISMISSED.
2 10-10335