Brenda Little v. State of Washington , 658 F. App'x 357 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 7 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA J. LITTLE, No. 14-35815
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01284-RSL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF WASHINGTON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Brenda J. Little, an inactive attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
order declaring her a vexatious litigant and imposing pre-filing restrictions. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014).
*
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).
We vacate and remand.
In declaring Little a vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing order against
her, the district court provided Little with notice and an opportunity to be heard,
developed an adequate record for review, and made substantive findings regarding
her frivolous and harassing litigation history. See id. (discussing factors to
consider before imposing pre-filing restrictions). However, the provision imposing
pre-filing review on “[a]ny pro se complaint submitted for filing in this district in
which Brenda J. Little is a named plaintiff or purports to act as a party
representative” is not narrowly tailored to disputes arising from the attorney
disciplinary proceedings that Little seeks to challenge. See id. at 1066-67(outlining requirement that pre-filing order be narrowly tailored); see also De
Long. v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990) (pre-filing orders “must
be narrowly tailored to fit the specific vice encountered”). Accordingly, we vacate
the entry of the pre-filing order and remand for the district court to enter a pre-
filing order that is narrowly tailored.
Little’s contentions that the district court acted improperly, violated various
constitutional amendments, issued an advisory opinion, erred by not following
procedures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and improperly structured
the pre-filing order are unpersuasive.
2 14-35815
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3 14-35815
Little v. State of Washington, No. 14-35815
SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I would affirm.
4 14-35815