Frank Konarski; v. City of Tucson;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK KONARSKI; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF TUCSON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16789
D.C. No. 4:16-cv-00592-JGZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Frank, Gabriela, John, and Frank E. Konarski appeal pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing their action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant
pre-filing order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and
* 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).
FILED
SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-16789
we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Konarskis’
action because the Konarskis failed to comply with the pre-filing order that
declared them vexatious litigants and required them to obtain leave of court before
filing a complaint in the district court. See id. at 642 (discussing the factors for
determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order); In re
Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (a district court has discretion to
dismiss an action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant pre-filing order).
We reject as unsupported by the record the Konarskis’ contentions that the
district court violated due process by enforcing the pre-filing order without issuing
an order to show cause, and expanded the requirements of the pre-filing order
entered against them.
Because we affirm, we deny as unnecessary the Konarskis’ request for
reassignment to a new district judge on remand, set forth in their opening brief.
Appellees’ motion for leave to file an answering brief (Docket Entry No. 15)
is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --