Hussein Hussein v. John Frederick , 436 F. App'x 831 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, No. 08-15485
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-CV-00585-RLH-
RAM
and
JEFFREY A. DICKERSON, MEMORANDUM *
Counsel - Appellant,
v.
JOHN FREDERICK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Hussein S. Hussein appeals pro se from the district court’s orders dismissing
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
his 42 U.SC. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and state law violations against
the Nevada System of Higher Education and its employees (“NSHE”), and
NSHE’s lawyers. Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Hussein’s former counsel, appeals pro se
from the district court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees as a sanction under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11 and the court’s inherent powers. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state
a claim. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for an
abuse of discretion the imposition of sanctions. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501
U.S. 32, 55 (1991). We affirm.
The district court properly granted NSHE’s lawyers’ motion to dismiss
because the complaint contained only conclusory allegations that the lawyers had
conspired with government officials. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior
Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (conclusory allegations that private
lawyer conspired with government officials were insufficient to establish that
lawyer was state actor for purposes of § 1983).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental
jurisdiction over Hussein’s state law claims against NSHE’s lawyers. See Acri v.
Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm the dismissal of the
state law claims against NSHE’s lawyers for the reasons set forth in the district
2 08-15485
court’s order entered on April 3, 2007.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting NSHE’s motion
for terminating sanctions. See Televideo Sys. Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 916
(9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (“Courts have inherent equitable powers to dismiss
actions for . . . abusive litigation practices.”). The district court’s findings that
Appellants acted willfully and in bad faith in filing the complaint, including to
circumvent a court order in another case and to harass and intimidate witnesses,
were not clearly erroneous and support the sanction of dismissal under the court’s
inherent powers. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958-61 (9th Cir. 2006)
(setting forth clear error standard for factual findings and affirming sanction of
dismissal with prejudice under inherent powers).
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s
fees against Dickerson as a sanction under Rule 11 and its inherent powers. See
Chambers, 501 U.S. at 55-58 (affirming award of attorney’s fees under inherent
powers); Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming award
of attorney’s fees under Rule 11 for filing a baseless complaint without reasonable
and competent inquiry).
Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 08-15485