B. WATERS V. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, No. 13-55378 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUL 31 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT B. BENEDICT WATERS, No. 13-55378 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-04895-CASAJW v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 22, 2014** Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. B. Benedict Waters appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the * 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). district court s dismissal for failure to comply with vexatious litigant orders. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Waters s action without prejudice because Waters failed to comply with the vexatious litigant orders entered against him. See Waters v. Howard Sommers Towing, Inc., No. 105296 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2010), ECF No. 81; Waters v. Casas, No. 09-7696 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2012), ECF No. 306); see also In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d at 1090-01 (litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different court). The Central District of California properly assigned Waters s action to the Western Division of the Central District and to Judge Snyder under the district court s General Orders. We reject Waters s contentions regarding judicial bias as unsupported by the record. Waters s motion for sanctions and request for judicial notice are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 13-55378

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.