Doctor Christian R. Komor v. United States of America;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOCTOR CHRISTIAN R. KOMOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15851
D.C. No. 4:22-cv-00077-SHR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Scott H. Rash, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Christian R. Komor appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
with prejudice his action alleging that government officials violated his
constitutional rights by failing to address climate change. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s sua
* 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
JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15851
sponte dismissal of a complaint based on a failure to comply with a court order.
Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir.
2005). We affirm.
Because the district court’s finding that Komor filed this action in order to
evade the court order staying his prior action was not clearly erroneous, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Komor’s action for failure to
comply with the stay order. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393,
398-99 (9th Cir. 1998) (applying clear error to district court’s finding of plaintiff’s
motive for filing multiple actions; discussing factors a district court should
consider before dismissing a complaint for failure to comply with a court order and
explaining that this court reviews the record independently if the district court does
not explicitly consider them).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Komor’s motion to
recuse because Komor’s contention that the district court was biased was
speculative. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012)
(setting forth standard of review).
We reject as without merit and unsupported by the record Komor’s
contention that the district court should have granted his request for entry of
default.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --