Court Opinion

ID: 9406738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 17:01:01.062857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:32.885813
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 3 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YEHORAM UZIEL,                                  No.    21-56306

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                2:19-cv-01458-DSF-JEM
 v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,                   MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

                Defendant-Appellee,

MELVIN D. SANDVIG; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT
CHATSWORTH COURTHOUSE,
DEPARTMENT F47,

                Defendant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 29, 2023**

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                              San Francisco, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

      Yehoram Uziel, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s post-judgment

order awarding sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in Uziel’s

action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and (3), 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 18

U.S.C. § 242 by the litigants, attorneys, trial court, and other parties involved in his

earlier state-court action. Uziel previously appealed the district court’s judgment

dismissing his claims, and we affirmed. Uziel v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 857 Fed.

App’x. 405 (9th Cir. 2021) (unpublished). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Townsend v. Holman Consulting

Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1365–66 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding as Rule 11

sanctions the attorneys’ fees that defendants incurred in this action. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11(b) (establishing that a party presenting any pleading represents that “(1)

it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass . . . ; (2) the

claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a

nonfrivolous argument for . . . establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions

have evidentiary support . . .”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1), (4) (court may award

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

                                           2
sanctions for violations of Rule 11(b), including “reasonable attorney’s fees and

other expenses directly resulting from the violation”); Townsend, 929 F.2d at 1365

(“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.”);

see also Gaskell v. Weir, 10 F.3d 626, 629 (9th Cir. 1993) (“In a case like this,

where the original complaint is the improper pleading, all attorney fees reasonably

incurred in defending against the claims asserted in the complaint form the proper

basis for sanctions.”).

      Uziel also seeks review of the district court’s orders denying his motions to

recuse the magistrate and district court judges. We previously affirmed those

rulings, Uziel, 857 Fed. App’x. at 406, and decline to revisit them here.

      Uziel’s motion to recuse Judges Goodwin, Canby, Thomas, Silverman, and

Tallman, filed on February 24, 2022 (Docket Entry No. 11), is DENIED.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3