David Whitehead v. Netflix, Inc. ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID LOUIS WHITEHEAD, No. 19-55905
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05500-JFW-RAO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NETFLIX, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
David Louis Whitehead appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing his action under a pre-filing vexatious litigant order. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Moy v.
United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Whitehead’s
proposed filings and dismissing his action because the filings were within the
scope of the district court’s pre-filing vexatious litigant order. See Weissman v.
Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (“District courts have the
inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with
abusive and lengthy histories of litigation. Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the
litigant from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain
requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court . . . .” (internal citation
removed)).
We reject as without merit Whitehead’s contentions that the district judge
and magistrate judges should have recused themselves from this action.
Whitehead’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-55905