FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT P. SMITH, III, No. 11-15439
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-02088-OWW-
SKO
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM *
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Robert P. Smith, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his motion for sanctions and costs based on the
*
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).
allegedly defective removal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Gibson v. Chrysler
Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 949-50 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for
sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it
properly concluded that the California Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections (“CDCR”) did not remove the case or oppose remand for an improper
purpose, and the CDCR’s filings were not clearly frivolous. See Holgate v.
Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675-77 (9th Cir. 2005) (identifying bases for awarding
Rule 11 sanctions and explaining that a frivolous filing is both baseless and made
without a reasonable and competent inquiry).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for
costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because the CDCR had “an objectively reasonable
basis for removal.” Gardner v. UICI, 508 F.3d 559, 560-61 (9th Cir. 2007)
(discussing the circumstances under which an award of attorney’s fees and costs
may be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for
reconsideration because Smith failed to establish a basis warranting
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
2 11-15439
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for
reconsideration). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s
motion to supplement his motion for reconsideration with newly discovered
evidence. See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 769 n.11 (9th Cir. 2008) (a
district court’s decision concerning its management of litigation is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion).
Smith’s request for costs, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, is denied.
The CDCR’s motion for judicial notice, filed on October 31, 2011, is denied.
Smith’s request for an order directing prison officials to comply with 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), filed on October 19, 2012, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-15439