DAVID WHITEHEAD V. NETFLIX, INC., No. 19-55905 (9th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID LOUIS WHITEHEAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-55905 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05500-JFW-RAO MEMORANDUM* NETFLIX, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. David Louis Whitehead appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action under a pre-filing vexatious litigant order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm. * 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). The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Whitehead’s proposed filings and dismissing his action because the filings were within the scope of the district court’s pre-filing vexatious litigant order. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (“District courts have the inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation. Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the litigant from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court . . . .” (internal citation removed)). We reject as without merit Whitehead’s contentions that the district judge and magistrate judges should have recused themselves from this action. Whitehead’s pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 19-55905

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.