CHARLES KINNEY V. FRANCES ROTHSCHILD, No. 17-56356 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES G. KINNEY, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-56356 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-05342-GW-SS v. MEMORANDUM* FRANCES ROTHSCHILD; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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). Kinney’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. 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. 2 17-56356 The parties’ requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13, and 14) are granted. AFFIRMED. 3 17-56356
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.
