From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waters v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 31, 2014
584 F. App'x 417 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

Submitted July 22, 2014

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:12-cv-04895-CAS-AJW. Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding.

B. Benedict Waters, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Los Angeles, CA.

For EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Defendant - Appellee: Nathaniel Garrett, Esquire, Attorney, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA; Angela M. Taylor, Jones Day, Irvine, CA.

For JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, a Illinois general partnership, Eric J. Hardeman, Defendants - Appellees: Nathaniel Garrett, Esquire, Attorney, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA.


Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

B. Benedict Waters appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal for failure to comply with vexatious litigant orders. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Waters's action without prejudice because Waters failed to comply with the vexatious litigant orders entered against him. See Waters v. Howard Sommers Towing, Inc., No. 10-5296 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2010), ECF No. 81; Waters v. Casas, No. 09-7696, (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2012), ECF No. 306); see also In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d at 1090-01 (litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different court).

The Central District of California properly assigned Waters's action to the Western Division of the Central District and to Judge Snyder under the district court's General Orders.

We reject Waters's contentions regarding judicial bias as unsupported by the record.

Waters's motion for sanctions and request for judicial notice are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Waters v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 31, 2014
584 F. App'x 417 (9th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Waters v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:B. BENEDICT WATERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 31, 2014

Citations

584 F. App'x 417 (9th Cir. 2014)