NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
GREGORY MELVIN HAYNES, No. 10-16327
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02295-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; ANDREW BRAUN;
ESTER CHOO; ROBERT DYNES;
JESSICA FOGLER; REGINA GRAHAM;
FREDERICK HUANG; MARY LEARY;
ALICIA F. LIEBERMAN; HURBERT
OCHITILL; ROBERT OKIN; RICK
PATEL; REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA;
TAMAR SEIVER; TRUDY SINGZON;
JEFF ADACHI; ROBERT BUNKER;
JOHN CRUDO; PAUL DAVIES;
HEATHER FONG; HUGH HALL;
GREGORY HICKS; MITCHELL KATZ;
LEON LOEW; MATHEW MASON;
GAVIN NEWSOM; TROY WILLIAMS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 16, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Attorney Gregory Haynes appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions
in an amount exceeding $360,000. In the published opinion filed concurrently
with this memorandum disposition, we remand for the district court to reconsider
its sanctions award in light of our holding that it has the discretion to reduce the
award because of Haynes’s inability to pay. We affirm the district court’s order in
all other respects.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Haynes had
“unreasonably and vexatiously” multiplied the proceedings below, and that his
unreasonable conduct had caused the defendants to incur $362,545.61 in excess
costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927. After the depositions of hearing officer Julian
Sapirstein and psychiatric nurse Alice Asher had been taken, it was clear that none
of the plaintiff’s remaining claims against any of the defendants had any merit.
The continued pursuit of these frivolous claims after this point was at the very least
reckless, and thus the costs subsequently incurred by the defendants may properly
2
be awarded as sanctions pursuant to § 1927. See B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept., 276
F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002).
Haynes’s procedural objections to the sanctions order are without merit.
Haynes was given sufficient notice that his conduct was sanctionable.
Furthermore, the district court properly made a de novo determination of the
sanctions award, even if it did not hold an in person hearing on the matter. See
United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000).
We decline to impose additional sanctions on Haynes. We also deny as
moot the defendants’ request for judicial notice of the proceedings in a related
appeal.
For the reasons set forth in the published opinion filed concurrently
herewith, the district court’s order is REMANDED.1 Each side shall bear its own
costs on this appeal.
1
Given the extraordinary amounts of attorneys’ fees claimed in this § 1983
case by the City of San Francisco and the State of California (most of the latter’s
having been incurred after the court had held that the claims against the state
defendants were barred by the Eleventh Amendment), neither this memorandum
disposition nor the opinion filed herewith shall be deemed to bar the district judge
from sua sponte reducing the amount of the sanctions for any reason within his
discretion.
3