Peter T. Harrell v. Hornbrook Community Services District, a California Municipal Corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER T. HARRELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HORNBROOK COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT, a California Municipal
Corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16562
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01595-KJM-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
SEP 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16562
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 of 2 --