PETER HARRELL V. HORNBROOK COMMUNITY SERVICES, No. 18-16562 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETER T. HARRELL, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-16562 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01595-KJMGGH v. HORNBROOK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, a California Municipal Corporation; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Peter T. Harrell appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs in his action alleging a variety of federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s award of 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions. Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding fees and costs to defendants as a sanction under § 1927 because Harrell “evidenced bad faith in multiplying the proceedings in this case unreasonably and vexatiously.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 1235-36 (“Section 1927 sanctions may be imposed upon a pro se plaintiff.”). AFFIRMED. 2 18-16562
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.
