Court Opinion

ID: 4441117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-09-24 20:00:29.742992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:51.369304
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 24 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER T. HARRELL,                               No. 18-16562

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01595-KJM-
                                                GGH
 v.

HORNBROOK COMMUNITY SERVICES                    MEMORANDUM*
DISTRICT, a California Municipal
Corporation; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before:      FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Peter T. Harrell appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting

defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs in his action alleging a variety of

federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

      *
             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).
review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s award of 28 U.S.C. § 1927

sanctions. Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding fees and costs to

defendants as a sanction under § 1927 because Harrell “evidenced bad faith in

multiplying the proceedings in this case unreasonably and vexatiously.” Id.

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 1235-36 (“Section

1927 sanctions may be imposed upon a pro se plaintiff.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                    18-16562