N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JUSTIN R INGGOLD-LOC KHAR T; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. C OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, JOHN A. C LAR KE, in his Offic ia l a

nd Adm inistra

tive C a pa c ity a s Exe c utive Offic e r of the Supe rior C o urt of the C ounty of Los Ange le s; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-55045 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01725-R -PLA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, M U R GUIA, a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
MAR 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Attorne y Nina R inggold a

nd he r son Justin R

inggold-Loc kha

rt (“ the R inggolds” ) a

ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de c la ring the m ve xatious litiga nts a nd im posing a pre -filing c ondition. W e pre viously va c a te d the distric t
c ourt’ s initia l ve xatious litiga nt pre -filing orde r and re m ande d for furthe r proc e e dings. Se e Ringgold-Lock hart v . C ty . of L.A. , 761 F.3d 1057, 1067 (9th C ir. 2014). On re m and, the distric t c ourt issue d a re vise d orde r, a ga in de c la ring the R inggolds ve xatious litiga nts a nd im posing a na rrowe r pre -filing c ondition. As the pa rtie s are fa m ilia

r with thefa c ts, we do not re c ount the m he re . W e re v ie w for an
a buse o f disc re tion, se e id. a t 1062, a nd we a ffirm
. 1 1. W he n a

distric t c ourt se e ks to im

pose a pre -filing re stric tion, it m ust: (1) give the litiga

nts notic e and a

n opportunity

to be he ard; (2) “ c om

p ile an
a de quate re c ord for a

ppe lla te re vie w” ; (3) “ m a

ke substa ntive findings of frivolousne ss or ha

ra ssm e nt” ; a

nd (4) “ ta ilor the orde r narrowly .” Id. (c iting De Long v . He nne

sse y , 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th C ir. 1990)). He re , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in issuing a re vise d
ve xatious litiga

nt pre -filing orde r. Our prior de te rm inations tha t the distric t c ourt

1 W e grant the pa

rtie s’ re q ue sts for judic ia l notic e “ to the e xte nt [tha t the y are ] c om patible with Fe d. R . Evid. 201 a nd ‘ do[] not re quire the a c c e pta nc e of fa c t s subje c t to re a sona

ble dispute .’ ” Assoc iate d Ge n. C o ntrac tors of Am. v . C

al. De p’t of Transp. , 713 F.3d 1187, 1190 n.1 (9th C ir. 2013) (c ita tion om i tte d). 2provide d suffic ie nt notic e an d an opportunity to be he ard, a nd tha t the distric t c ourt
c om pile d a n a de quate re c ord for a

ppe lla te re vie w, a

re still a c c ura t e . Se e id . at 1063-64. C ontra

ry to the R inggolds’ c onte ntion, noneof the e rrors ide ntifie d in our prior opinion re quire d the distric t c ourt to provide a furthe r opportunity

to be he ard on re m and. In its re vise d

orde r, the distric t c ourt c o rre c te d the e rrors we ide ntifie d
re ga rding its substa

ntive findings of frivolousne ss or ha ra ssm e nt. Se e id
. a t 1064- 66. For e xam

ple , in our prior opinion, we fa ulte d the distric t c ourt for inc luding R inggold-Loc kha

rt in the pre -filing re stric tion be c a use the re wa s no indic a tion tha t he pla y e d a pa rt in re late d sta

t e c ourt litiga

tion. Se e id . at 1066. In its revise d orde r, the distric t c ourt de ta ile d R inggold-Loc kha rt’ s pa rtic ipation in the

sta te c ourt litiga tion. Like wise , the distric t c ourt followe d our guida n c e to c onside r
a lte rna tive le ss re stric tive sa nc t ions. Se e id . at 1065. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt he e de d our a dm onishm e nt tha t the sc ope of its initia l pre -filing re stric tion wa s too broa d in se ve ra l re spe c ts. Se e id
. a t 1066-67. The distric t c ourt na

rrowe d the sc ope of the pre -filing re stric tion, suc h tha t the re is
now a suffic ie ntly

“ c lose fit be t

we e n the te rm s of the injunc tion a nd the proble m

it purports to a ddre ss.” Id . at 1067.

3Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt a c te d within its disc re tion in de c la

ring the R inggolds ve xatious litiga nts a nd im posing a pre -filing c o ndition. 2. W e a l so de ny

the R inggolds’ re que st tha t this c ourt re c a ll its m andate in thre e prior a

ppe a l s. “ W e have the inhe re nt powe r to re c a ll our m andate in orde r to prote c t the inte grity

of our proc e sse s, but should only do so in e xc e ptiona l
c irc um s ta nc e s .” C arrington v . Unite d State

s , 503 F.3d 888, 891 (9th C ir. 2007). He re , the R inggolds ha

ve not shown tha

t the re are e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s tha t
warra n t re c a lling the m an d a te s. AFFIRM E D
.

4