UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NINA RINGGOLD; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. JERRY BROWN, in his Individual and Official Capacity as Governor of the State of California and in his Individual and Official Capacity as Former Attorney General of the State of California; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16269 D.C. No. 2:12

- cv - 00717

- JAM

- JFM Eastern District of California, Sacramento ORDER

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. The memorandum disposition filed October 29 , 201 8 , is hereby amended. An amended disposition is filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 35. Appellants’ petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc (Docket Entry No. 77) are denied. 

# FILED

APR 30 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 16269

Appellants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 78) is denied. No further filings will be entertained i n this closed case.NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NINA RINGGOLD; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. JERRY BROWN, in his Individual and Official Capacity as Governor of the State of California and in his Individual and Official Capacity as Former Attorney General of the State of California; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16269 D.C. No. 2:12

- cv - 00717

- JAM

- JFM

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018 ** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Nina Ringgold, Justin Ringgold

- Lockhart, and t he Law Office of Nina Ringgold appeal from the district court’s order denying various post

- judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 30 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 16269

motion s . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Hamid v. Price Waterhouse , 51 F.3d 1411, 1415

- 16 (9th Cir. 1995). We may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record. Moreno v.
Baca , 431 F.3d 633, 638 (9th Cir. 2005)

. We affirm in part and vacate in part

. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion
for disqualification because plaintiffs failed to establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (listing circumstances requiring recusal); Clemens
v. U.S. Dist. Court , 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (test for di squalification of judge under § 455(a) ). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the district court did not err by resolving the motion without an evidentiary hearing. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 78(b). We reject as without me rit plaintiffs’ argument s that the district court erred by denying their request for “intercircui t assignment” under 28 U.S.C. § 292.
The district court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ motions for a three

- judge panel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was subject to the jurisdiction of a three

-

judge court.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion
for recon sideration and motion to vacate the judgment because plaintiffs failed to3 17

- 16269

establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60 )

. W e reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the applicability of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 52 and 54(b).
The district court did not abuse i ts discretion in taking judicial notice of the Central District of California’s pre - filing order against Nina Ringgold and Justin Ringgold

- Lockhart because courts may take judicial notice of documents in the public record. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles , 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) ( setting forth standard of review ).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Nina Ringgold and Justin Ringgold

- Lockhart under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 because the record supports
the conclusion that Ringgol d and Ringgold

- Lockhart filed the ir First Amended Complaint for the improper purpose of circumventing the pre - filing order. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp. , 929 F.2d 1358, 13 61

- 62, 65 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc) ( “A district court confronted with solid evidence of a pleading’s frivolousness may in circumstances that warrant it infer that it was filed for an improper purpose.” )

.4 17

- 16269

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ cross motion for sanctions because plaintiffs failed to establish grounds for sanctions.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); Christian v. Mattel, Inc. , 286 F.3d 1118, 1126

- 27 (9th Cir. 2002) (describing grounds for Rule 11 sanctions)

. T he district court , however, abused its discre tion in imposing a $1 , 000

mo netary sanction on Nina Ringgold because the record does not support the district court’s conclusion that Ringgold violated a court order in a manner
tantamount to bad faith

. See Fink v. Gomez , 239 F.3d 989, 991

- 94 (9th Cir. 20 01) ( “[T]he district court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions for bad faith, which includes a broad range of willful improper conduct

. ” )

. W e vacate the $1,000 sanction against Nina Ringgold. We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal , or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brie f

. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions and requests are denied. Appellants shall bear the costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part .