KINNEY v. ROTHSCHILD (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Charles G. Kinney appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of federal law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a pre-filing vexatious litigant order. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kinney's action because Kinney failed to comply with the vexatious litigant order entered against him. See id. at 1091 (litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different court).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kinney's action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kinney's motion to vacate or reconsider the district court's dismissal order because Kinney failed to establish any grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60).

We reject as meritless Kinney's contention that the magistrate judge lacked authority to transfer this case and to enter other interlocutory orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Appellees Clark, Marcus, and Chomsky's motion to be dismissed from this appeal (Docket Entry No. 12) is granted.

The parties’ requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13, and 14) are granted.

AFFIRMED.