Court Opinion

ID: 9380954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 18:00:54.950316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.600428
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALVIN DALTON,                                   No. 21-16727

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:20-cv-06568-JSW

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
KOENIG, Warden,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                    Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Alvin Dalton appeals pro se from the district court’s

order denying his post-judgment motion for sanctions in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Winterrowd Am. Gen. Annuity Ins.

      *
             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).
Co., 556 F.3d 815, 819 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dalton’s motion for

sanctions because Dalton failed to demonstrate any basis for an award of sanctions.

See Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Three primary sources of

authority enable courts to sanction parties or their lawyers for improper conduct:

(1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which applies to signed writings filed with

the court, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which is aimed at penalizing conduct that

unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies the proceedings, and (3) the court’s

inherent power.”).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 487 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                     21-16727