Case Name: Barbara A. PARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon B. FUTERMAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-28
Citations: 22 F. App'x 912
Docket Number: No. 01-16089; D.C. No. CV-00-01028-FCD/PAN
Parties: Barbara A. PARRETT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Sharon B. FUTERMAN, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 912–913

Head Matter:
Barbara A. PARRETT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Sharon B. FUTERMAN, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 01-16089.
D.C. No. CV-00-01028-FCD/PAN.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2001.
Decided Dec. 28, 2001.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, and TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Barbara A. Parrett appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of her First Amended Complaint against her former attorney James M. Mize and his attorney Sharon B. Futerman. The complaint is based upon the attorneys' efforts to have Parrett declared a vexatious litigant in a prior action in federal court pursuant to the California vexatious litigant statute, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 391 et seq., and Eastern District of California Local Rule 65.1-151.
The district court correctly dismissed Parrett's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under the doctrine of res judicata. Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Codispoti, 63 F.3d 863, 868 (9th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in entering a vexatious litigant injunction against Parrett. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146-49 (9th Cir.1990).
We reject Parrett's remaining contentions as meritless.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.