Pedro Barrey v. R.a. Heimer

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO BARREY,
Plaintiff,
v.
R.A. HEIMER,
Respondent - Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant.
No. 09-16443
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00573-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
09-16443 2
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Rae Heimer, a non-party to the underlying action, appeals pro se from the
district court’s order sanctioning her under its inherent power to curb abusive
litigation practices after dismissing the complaint she prepared for failure to state a
claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of
discretion, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing nominal monetary
sanctions on Heimer, an Arizona certified document preparer, under its inherent
authority to curb abusive litigation practices and after finding that she improperly
practiced law in drafting the complaint in this action for an improper purpose. See
Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 7-208(J)(5) (prohibiting document preparers from
providing “legal advice or services to another” and “any kind of advice, opinion or
recommendation to a consumer about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses,
options or strategies.”); Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001)
(affirming inherent-power sanctions based on a finding of bad faith, vexatiousness,
wantonness, oppressiveness, or willful disobedience of a court order); Fink v.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-16443 3
Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding of bad faith for purposes of
inherent-power sanctions includes a broad range of willful improper conduct, such
as trying to gain a tactical advantage).
Heimer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --