IN RE ARTHUR WEST V., No. 11-35918 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 02 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: ARTHUR SCOTT WEST, Appellant. No. 11-35918 D.C. No. 3:11-mc-05022-RBL MEMORANDUM* Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Arthur Scott West appeals pro se from the district court s order imposing a pre-filing restriction on him as a vexatious litigant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a pre-filing * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). restriction against West after giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing an adequate record for review, making findings regarding his frivolous litigation history, and tailoring the restriction to the specific vices encountered. See id. at 1057-61 (discussing the four factors for imposing pre-filing restrictions). We reject West s contentions concerning the district court s jurisdiction to impose the pre-filing restriction, judicial bias, and the validity of the restriction and the vexatious litigant standards under federal and state law. The Port of Tacoma s opposed motion for leave to file an amicus brief, filed on August 16, 2013, is denied. West s request for default and appointment of the U.S. Attorney as amicus curiae, set forth his opposition brief, is also denied. West s motion for reconsideration, filed on September 27, 2013, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 11-35918

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.