Case Name: B. Benedict WATERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-31
Citations: 584 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 13-55378
Parties: B. Benedict WATERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
B. Benedict WATERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-55378.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 31, 2014.
B. Benedict Waters, Los Angeles, CA, pro se. .
Nathaniel Garrett, Esquire, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, Angela M. Taylor, Jones Day, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
B. Benedict Waters appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal for failure to comply with vexatious litigant orders. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Waters's action without prejudice because Waters failed to comply with the vexatious litigant orders entered against him. See Waters v. Howard Sommers Towing, Inc., No. 10-5296 (C.D.Cal. Dec. 17, 2010), ECF No. 81; Waters v. Casas, No. 09-7696 (C.D.Cal. July 9, 2012), ECF No. 306; see also In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d at 1090-01 (litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different court).
The Central District of California properly assigned Waters's action to the Western Division of the Central District and to Judge Snyder under the district court's General Orders.
We reject Waters's' contentions regarding judicial bias as unsupported by the record.
Waters's motion for sanctions and request for judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.