FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 07-16435
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-04-00455-JCM
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER MEMORANDUM *
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 08-15976
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:04-CV-00455-JCM-
and GWF
JEFFREY A. DICKERSON,
Interested Party - Appellant,
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 08-17626
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00455-JCM-
and GWF
JEFFREY A. DICKERSON,
Interested Party - Appellant,
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 09-16057
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00455-JCM-
and GWF
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
2
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 09-17496
Plaintiff, D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00455-JCM-
and GWF
JEFFREY A. DICKERSON,
Interested Party - Appellant,
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 10-16671
Plaintiff, D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00455-JCM-
GWF
and
JEFFREY A. DICKERSON,
Interested Party - Appellant,
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
3
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 10-17069
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00455-JCM-
GWF
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 10-17150
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00455-JCM-
GWF
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 10-17282
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00455-JCM-
GWF
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
4
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued in part and submitted October 11, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and ALBRITTON, Senior
District Judge.***
These consolidated appeals arise out of various orders entered by the district
court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and
vacate and remand in part.
07-16435
In appeal 07-16435, we grant defendants’ motion for judicial notice of the
complaints in the related cases because the record in this case contains numerous
references to these documents and they were central to the parties’ arguments
before the district court. See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2002).
We hold that the vexatious litigant injunction was properly issued because
(1) Hussein had notice and an opportunity to submit written arguments on the
**
The panel unanimously concludes that appeal numbers 07-16435,
08-17626, 09-16057, 09-17496, 10-17069, and 10-17150 are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable William H. Albritton, III, Senior District Judge for the
U.S. District Court for Middle Alabama, sitting by designation.
5
issue; (2) the district court created an adequate record for review by addressing
Hussein’s prior cases; (3) the district court made substantive findings as to the
frivolous and harassing nature of the actions; and (4) the injunction was narrowly
tailored to prevent Hussein only from continuing his frivolous and harassing
litigation tactics. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057–58
(9th Cir. 2007).
08-15976
In appeal 08-15976, we hold that the first contempt order was not an abuse
of discretion because Hussein’s new actions violated the injunction (1) by seeking
to relitigate whether Wilds violated his First Amendment rights by not calling on
him at a faculty meeting, and (2) by seeking to relitigate his access to performance
evaluations.
08-17626 and 09-17496
In appeals 08-17626 and 09-17496, we hold that the second contempt order
was not an abuse of discretion because Hussein violated the court’s order to seek
only injunctive relief for his termination, and because the complaint attached to his
motion to allow a supplemental complaint violated the order by attempting to
relitigate defense counsel’s use of the disputed subpoenas.
6
09-16057
In appeal 09-16057, we hold that the district court had jurisdiction to
determine the amount of the contempt award because the notice of appeal was
premature and a premature notice of appeal does not deprive the district court of
jurisdiction. See Jensen Elec. Co. v. Moore, Caldwell, Rowland & Dodd, Inc., 873
F.2d 1327, 1329 (9th Cir. 1989). We vacate the order holding the issue was moot
and remand for the district court to determine the amount of the contempt award.
10-16671
In appeal 10-16671, we hold that the 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions against
Dickerson were not an abuse of discretion because Dickerson engaged in
unreasonable, vexatious, and bad faith conduct, as described by the district court.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the costs incurred by
the defendants after Dickerson was warned to drop the unsupported cases were
“excess costs, expenses and attorney’s fees reasonably incurred” after Dickerson
received the warning. See De Dios v. Int’l Realty & Invs., 641 F.3d 1071, 1076–77
(9th Cir. 2011).
7
10-17069
In appeal 10-17069, we hold that issuing the third contempt order was not an
abuse of discretion because Hussein’s second amended complaint would have
required relitigating the evidence of a break-in at Hussein’s laboratory to establish
the reason for the alleged defamatory news article. Hussein was not denied due
process by his failure to attend the contempt hearing because he had ample notice
of the hearing and was permitted to provide written arguments. See Pac. Harbor
Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000).
10-17150
In appeal 10-17150, Hussein argues that Judge Mahan should have
disqualified himself. First, he argues disqualification was necessary because nearly
ten years ago Judge Mahan was appointed as a state judge by a former governor
who is now a defendant in one of Hussein’s other actions. Because Hussein has
not established that Judge Mahan had any relevant relationship with the former
governor at the time of the disqualification motion, Judge Mahan did not abuse his
discretion by denying the motion. See Clemens v. U.S. District Ct., 428 F.3d 1175,
1178 (9th Cir. 2005).
Hussein also argues that Judge Mahan should have disqualified himself
because his former law clerk now works for defense counsel’s firm. Because the
8
former law clerk has not worked on this case, disqualification was not necessary.
See United States v. Bosch, 951 F.2d 1546, 1548–49 (9th Cir. 1991).
10-17282
In appeal 10-17282, we hold that the fee award entered against Hussein for
defense expenses was not an abuse of discretion because the district court properly
found that Hussein’s actions were frivolous and were brought to harass. Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 n.2 (1983). There is no cause to adjust the amount
set by the district court.
Costs
In appeal 07-164735, challenging the injunction, costs are taxed against
appellant.
In appeal 08-15976, challenging the first contempt order, costs are taxed
against appellants.
In appeals 08-17626 and 09-17496, challenging the second contempt order,
costs are taxed against appellants.
In appeal 09-16057, challenging the mootness ruling, costs are taxed against
appellees.
In appeal 10-16671, challenging the sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, costs
are taxed against appellant.
9
In appeal 10-17069, challenging the third contempt order, costs are taxed
against appellant.
In appeal 10-17150, challenging the denial of the disqualification motion,
costs are taxed against appellant.
In appeal 10-17282, challenging the award of attorney fees, costs are taxed
against appellant.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
10