N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

M ATT SAR GENT; J. DOE,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. TANI C ANTIL-SAKAUYE, in he r offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s C ha i rm an of the Judic ia l C ounc il of C a lifornia and C h ie f Justic e of C a l ifornia ; M AR TIN HOSHINO, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Adm inistra

tive Dire c tor of the Judic ia l C ounc il of C a l ifornia , De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-15348 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-07017-VC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Vinc e C hha

bria , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 16, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# F IL ED
JUL 21 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : IKUTA a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s , a

nd TAGLE, *** Distric t Judge
. M att Sa rge nt a ppe a ls the dism issa l of his c om pla int c ha lle n ging the C a lifornia ve xatious litiga

nt sta tute (the “ C VLS” ), C a l. C i v. Proc
. C ode § 391–391.8, a s unc onstitutiona l unde r both theUnite d State s a nd C a lifornia C onstitutions. We have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. Sarge nt’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the C VLS viola

te s the First Am e ndm e nt is fore c lose d by W

o l fev . Ge orge , 486 F.3d 1120 (9th C i r. 2007), whic h re je c te d the
sam e fa c ia l c o n stitutiona

l c h a lle nge s to theC VLS ra i se d by Sarge nt. Sa

rge nt’ s
argum e nt tha

t the C VLS im

pe rm issibly

c hills theFirst Am e ndm e nt right to ac c e ss the c ourts is m e ritle ss, give n W olfe ’ s holding tha

t the re is no c onstitutiona l right to file the sort of frivolous litiga tion ba rre d by the C VLS. Id. at

1125. B e c a

use W olfe sta te d tha t it wa s a ddre ssing a

n “ [o] ve rbre a dth” c ha lle nge , id. at 1124, whic h by de finition is a

fa c ia l c ha lle nge , se e Unite d State s v . W i lliams , 553 U.S. 285, 292 (2008), Sa

rge nt’ s a rgum e nt tha

t W olfe a ddre sse d only

an a s-a p plie d c ha lle nge a lso fa ils. W e are the re fore bound by the de c ision in W

o lfe
. Se e Rodrigue

z v . AT & T Mobility Se rv s. LLC , 728 F.3d 975, 979 (9th C ir. 2013). Ringgold-Lock hart v

. C ounty of Los Ange le

s , whic h a ddre sse d fe de ra l ve xatious litiga nt rule s a nd

* * * The Honora

ble Hilda G. Ta g le , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion. 2e xpre s sly

did not c onside r the C VLS, is the re fore not a pplic a b le . 761 F.3d 1057, 1061 n.1 (9th C ir. 2014). W e a lso re

je c t Sa rge nt’ s a rgum e nt tha

t § 391.7(b) of the

C a lifornia

C ode of C ivil Proc e dure viola

t e s the C a lifornia

c onstitutiona

l provisions prohibiting a single a ppe lla te judge from

m aking a “ judgm e nt,” C a l. C onst. a

rt. VI, § 3, or from

“ de te rm in[ing] c a

use s” without putting re a sons in writing, C a l. C onst. a rt. VI, § 14, be c a use a singlea ppe lla te judge de te rm i ning whe the r a litiga tion “ha s m e rit” unde r § 391.7(b) “ doe s not pa s s on [the litiga tion’ s] m e rits,” but “ m e re ly de te rm ine s if the re is a n issueto re vie won a

ppe a l.” 1 In re R.H. , 170 C a l. App. 4th 678, 701 (2009), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by J ohn v

. Supe rior C

ourt , 63 C a l. 4th 91, 369 P.3d 238 (2016). Moran v . Murtaugh Mille r Me y e r & N e lson, LLP , 40 C a l . 4th 780 (2007), did not a

d d re s s the sta

nda rd c onside re d in In re R.H. , a single judge ’ s de te rm i nation whe the r an a ppe a l “ ha s m e rit,” § 391.7, but inste a d a ddre sse d a diffe re nt sta

nda rd, a n a ppe lla te pa ne l ’ s de te rm i nation whe the r the re is a

“ re a sona ble proba bility ” tha t a ve xatious litiga

nt will pre v a il. Id. at 784 (quoting C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 391.3 (1982)). There fore , Moran doe s not provide

1 To the e xte nt Sa

rge nt c ha lle nge s se c tion 391.3 or 391.4 of the C a lifornia C ode of C ivil Proc e dure on the sa m e grounds, his a

rgum e nt fa i ls be c a

use those se c t ions re quire the full c ourt, not a singlea p pe lla te judge , to m ake the re le va nt de te rm i nations. B e c a

use se c tion 391.3 doe s not re quire a singlejudge to m ake a judgm e nt, the fa c t tha

t se c t ion 391.3 wa s a

m e nde d in 2013 is irre le va nt. 3c onvinc i ng e vide nc e tha t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt would not follow In re R.H.
. Se e Ry man v . Se a rs, Roe buc k & C o. , 505 F.3d 993, 994 (9th C ir. 2007). Sarge nt’ s othe r c ha lle nge s a lso fa il. The C VLS doe s not viola t e the Supre m a c y

C la use be c a u se it doe s not lim

it a c c e ss to fe de ra l c ourts. Se e Donov an
v . C ity of Dallas , 377 U.S. 408, 413–14 (1964). Sa rge nt’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt
c ha lle nge fa ils be c a

use it is “ ge ne ra l, m e nt ione d only in pa ssing, a

nd . . . unsupporte d by

m e aningful a

rgum e nt.” Unite d State

s v . Stote rau , 524 F.3d 988, 1003 n.7 (9th C ir. 2008). Sa rge nt’ s fa c ia l c h a lle nge to the C VLS a s viola ting the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt “ [d] u e proc e ss gua rante e [] ” of “ an a

bse n c e of a c tua l bia s on the pa rt of a judge ,” W

illiams v . Pe nnsy l

v ania , 136 S. C t . 1899, 1905 (2016) (quota tion omi tte d), a lso fa i ls be c a use the singlehy

pothe tic a l Sarge nt de sc ribe s doe s not show “that the la w is unc onstitutiona

l in a ll of its a

pplic ations,” W ashington State

Grange v . W

ashington State

Re public an Party , 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008). Nor doe s the C VLS viola te C a lifornia

public polic y

by disc rim inating
a ga inst indigent litiga

nts. Se eMoran , 40 C a l. 4th a t 786. 2 AFFIRM E D
.

2 W e de ny

Sarge nt’ s m otion for re c onside ration of theorde r de ny i ng his m otion to de c la

re Xavie r B e c e rra

a ve xat ious litiga

nt (Dkt 58). 4