Yehoram Uziel v. Superior Court of California ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YEHORAM UZIEL, No. 21-56306
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:19-cv-01458-DSF-JEM
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant-Appellee,
MELVIN D. SANDVIG; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT
CHATSWORTH COURTHOUSE,
DEPARTMENT F47,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2023**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Yehoram Uziel, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s post-judgment
order awarding sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in Uziel’s
action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and (3), 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 18
U.S.C. § 242 by the litigants, attorneys, trial court, and other parties involved in his
earlier state-court action. Uziel previously appealed the district court’s judgment
dismissing his claims, and we affirmed. Uziel v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 857 Fed.
App’x. 405 (9th Cir. 2021) (unpublished). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Townsend v. Holman Consulting
Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1365–66 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding as Rule 11
sanctions the attorneys’ fees that defendants incurred in this action. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11(b) (establishing that a party presenting any pleading represents that “(1)
it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass . . . ; (2) the
claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a
nonfrivolous argument for . . . establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions
have evidentiary support . . .”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1), (4) (court may award
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
sanctions for violations of Rule 11(b), including “reasonable attorney’s fees and
other expenses directly resulting from the violation”); Townsend, 929 F.2d at 1365(“A district court confronted with solid evidence of a pleading’s frivolousness may
in circumstances that warrant it infer that it was filed for an improper purpose.”);
see also Gaskell v. Weir, 10 F.3d 626, 629 (9th Cir. 1993) (“In a case like this,
where the original complaint is the improper pleading, all attorney fees reasonably
incurred in defending against the claims asserted in the complaint form the proper
basis for sanctions.”).
Uziel also seeks review of the district court’s orders denying his motions to
recuse the magistrate and district court judges. We previously affirmed those
rulings, Uziel, 857 Fed. App’x. at 406, and decline to revisit them here.
Uziel’s motion to recuse Judges Goodwin, Canby, Thomas, Silverman, and
Tallman, filed on February 24, 2022 (Docket Entry No. 11), is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
3