Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
11-35918•United States v. 2014-01-02 | 11-35918 | IN RE ARTHUR WEST V. | nonprecedential | memorandum…
11-35918Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit02.01.2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ARTHUR SCOTT WEST,
Appellant.
No. 11-35918
D.C. No. 3:11-mc-05022-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Arthur Scott West appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing a
pre-filing restriction on him as a vexatious litigant. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Molski v. Evergreen
Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a pre-filing
FILED
JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
restriction against West after giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard,
developing an adequate record for review, making findings regarding his frivolous
litigation history, and tailoring the restriction to the specific vices encountered.
See id. at 1057-61 (discussing the four factors for imposing pre-filing restrictions).
We reject West’s contentions concerning the district court’s jurisdiction to
impose the pre-filing restriction, judicial bias, and the validity of the restriction and
the “vexatious litigant standards” under federal and state law.
The Port of Tacoma’s opposed motion for leave to file an amicus brief, filed
on August 16, 2013, is denied. West’s request for default and appointment of the
U.S. Attorney as amicus curiae, set forth his opposition brief, is also denied.
West’s motion for reconsideration, filed on September 27, 2013, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
11-35918 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.