LAW.coLAW.co

BERNIER v. LARA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-30No. No. 20-55160

Summary

Holding. The district court's dismissal of the action for noncompliance with the vexatious litigant pre-filing order was affirmed.

Rejeanne Bernier and Hans S. Croteau appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit by the district court. The district court had dismissed their complaint because it violated a pre-filing order that had been imposed on them as vexatious litigants—meaning they had a history of abusive and excessive litigation. The appellants did not follow the requirements set out in that pre-filing order before filing their complaint.

The appellate court examined whether the district court acted within its proper discretion in enforcing the pre-filing order. The court found that the district court had not exceeded its authority. District courts have the power to impose restrictive pre-filing orders on vexatious litigants, which can require them to obtain court permission or file supporting documentation before filing new cases. Because the complaint fell within the scope of the pre-filing order and the appellants failed to meet the order's requirements, dismissal was appropriate.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether dismissal for violation of a pre-filing order against a vexatious litigant was an abuse of discretion
  • Authority of district courts to impose restrictive pre-filing orders on repeat litigants
  • Whether the complaint fell within the scope of the pre-filing requirements

Procedural posture

Appellants appealed pro se from a district court order dismissing their action for failure to comply with a pre-filing order applicable to vexatious litigants.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rejeanne Bernier and Hans S. Croteau appeal pro se from the district courts order dismissing their action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant pre-filing order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs’ action because the complaint was within the scope of the pre-filing order and plaintiffs failed to comply with the pre-filing requirements. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (“District courts have the inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation․ Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the litigant from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that support the merits of the case.”).

To the extent that plaintiffs seek to challenge the underlying pre-filing order, we do not consider their contentions because such a challenge is outside the scope of this appeal.

Plaintiffs’ motion to take judicial notice, and request set forth in the opening brief for reassignment to a different district court judge on remand, are denied.

AFFIRMED.