NINA RINGGOLD V. JERRY BROWN, No. 17-16269 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 30, 2019.

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NINA RINGGOLD; et al., No. Plaintiffs-Appellants, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-16269 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00717-JAM-JFM v. MEMORANDUM* JERRY BROWN, in his Individual and Official Capacity as Governor of the State of California and in his Individual and Official Capacity as Former Attorney General of the State of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Nina Ringgold, Justin Ringgold-Lockhart, and the Law Office of Nina Ringgold appeal from the district court’s order denying various post-judgment * 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). motions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Hamid v. Price Waterhouse, 51 F.3d 1411, 1415-16 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm in part and vacate in part. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for disqualification because plaintiffs failed to establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (listing circumstances requiring recusal); Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court, 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (test for disqualification of judge under § 455(a)). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the district court did not err by resolving the motion without an evidentiary hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ arguments that the district court erred by denying their request for “intercircuit assignment” under 28 U.S.C. § 292. The district court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ motions for a three-judge panel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was subject to the jurisdiction of a three-judge court. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and motion to vacate the judgment because plaintiffs failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. 2 17-16269 ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60). We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 and 54(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of the Central District of California’s pre-filing order against Nina Ringgold and Justin Ringgold-Lockhart because courts may take judicial notice of documents in the public record. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review). The district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Nina Ringgold and Justin Ringgold-Lockhart under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 because the record supports the conclusion that Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart filed their First Amended Complaint for the improper purpose of circumventing the pre-filing order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 136162, 65 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (“A district court confronted with solid evidence of a pleading’s frivolousness may in circumstances that warrant it infer that it was filed for an improper purpose.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion 3 17-16269 for sanctions because plaintiffs failed to comply with the “strict procedural requirements for parties to follow when they move for sanctions under Rule 11.” Radcliffe v. Rainbow Constr. Co., 254 F.3d 772, 788 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court, however, abused its discretion in imposing a $1,000 monetary sanction on Nina Ringgold because the record does not support the district court’s conclusion that Ringgold violated a court order in a manner tantamount to bad faith. See Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991-94 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he district court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions for bad faith, which includes a broad range of willful improper conduct.”). We vacate the $1,000 sanction against Nina Ringgold. We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions and requests are denied. Appellants shall bear the costs on appeal. AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part. 4 17-16269

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.