Unpublished Disposition, 878 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 878 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988)

Anthony YTURRI; Cliff S. Bentz, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.Donald E. TYLER, M.D., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 88-4118, 88-4184.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted*  June 28, 1989.Decided July 3, 1989.

Before FERGUSON, BRUNETTI and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Appellant appeals an injunction and judgment entered by the district court enjoining him from pursuing a state court lawsuit, and also appeals its order imposing sanctions.

* This action was originally brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2283, seeking to enjoin appellant from pursuing a state court lawsuit which he had filed in Malheur County, Oregon circuit court and to enjoin him from commencing, maintaining, or prosecuting any other similar actions. The case was originally assigned to Judge Redden, who recused himself, the case thereupon being reassigned to Judge Panner. Various motions, counter motions, petitions, and interlocutory motions were filed.

The trial was eventually held on April 11, 1988 in Pendleton, Oregon. Appellant did not appear. The court received into evidence appellees' trial exhibits and heard the testimony of appellees' witnesses. The court ruled in favor of appellees and granted them ten days in which to file a proposed injunction, judgment, and a motion for sanctions. Appellees filed the proposed injunction and judgment and proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order granting a permanent injunction. Judge Panner, having allowed appellant time to file pertinent objections, then issued an injunction and judgment which essentially enjoined Tyler from bringing future actions in state or federal courts relating to the issues and parties' rights adjudicated in Tyler v. Hartford Insurance, CV-88-854-RE.

Sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 were in the amount of $275.00. Tyler timely appealed the injunction and imposition of sanctions.

II

Appellant bases his appeal on eleven arguments. The arguments upon which appellant seeks to overturn the injunction and judgment of the district court are as follows: (1) the district court erred in denying the appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; (2) the district court erred in denying the appellant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12; (3) the district court acted without jurisdiction in violation of the fifth amendment; (4) various first amendment violations; (5) the judgments and the injunction were knowingly made based upon perjury by plaintiffs and conspiracy to commit perjury by all the plaintiffs and their counsel; (6) the trial was fraudulent in violation of the fifth amendment; (7) the pleadings do not support the judgment and injunction; (8) there is no evidence and there are insufficient findings to support the injunction and judgment and all the evidence is contrary to the judgment and injunction; (9) the court lacked jurisdiction concerning the merits of the case pending in state court and it had no jurisdiction over state court judgments by injunction; (10) these orders are a violation of the principles of law and equity and are clearly an abuse of discretion; and (11) the sanctions against the appellant were without evidence, contrary to all of the evidence, and a taking of property without due process of law in violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This court declines to grace appellant's contentions with a point-by-point analysis of his allegations. His brief has shown no facts nor any basis in law for overturning the order and judgment of the district court. Appellant essentially seems to think that a federal court cannot enjoin future action in state courts. This court has found such an injunction may be available in a proper case. See Zippel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 568-70 (9th Cir. 1988) (injunction preventing future litigation in state courts is proper).

None of appellant's other objections has any merit in fact or law. Instead, they are similar to appellant's arguments which he has pursued in various cases for over fifteen years. To quote Lord Hewart, a former Lord Chief Justice of England, appellant has made eleven objections to the decision below. "He has argued each one. We have listened to him and we find that each one comes to nothing. Nothing multiplied by [eleven] is still nothing." Oxford Book of Legal Anecdotes 163 (M. Gilbert ed. 1987).

We have reviewed Judge Panner's findings and conclusions on the motion for imposition of sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. We conclude that the order imposing $275.00 in sanctions is well founded and not an abuse of discretion.

Appellees have moved under Fed. R. App. P. 38 for sanctions on appeal. We find this appeal to be frivolous and hereby grant appellees' motion for attorney fees and double costs.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.