James Joseph Knochel v. Amy Fackrell

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES JOSEPH KNOCHEL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
and
EMILY NOELLE MIHAYLO,
Petitioner,
v.
AMY FACKRELL; JOHN C. MORRIS;
UNKOWN PARTY, named as Medical
Director - West Yavapai Guidance Clinic;
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF ARIZONA,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 20-17326
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-08086-GMS-JZB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
* 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).
FILED
DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17326
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
James Joseph Knochel appeals pro se from the district court’s order
designating him a vexatious litigant and imposing pre-filing restrictions against
him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Knochel contends that the district court should have held an evidentiary
hearing before imposing the order, and that recent developments in state court
undermine the basis for the order. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Molski v.
Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007), we conclude there
was none. The district court followed the appropriate procedure in imposing the
order: It gave Knochel notice and an opportunity to oppose the order, compiled an
adequate record for appellate review, made substantive findings regarding the
harassing nature of Knochel’s litigation history, and narrowly tailored the
prohibition to future filings in which Knochel may seek to act on behalf of, as next
friend of, or that in any way relate to, Emily Mihaylo. See Ringgold-Lockhart v.
Cnty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). The alleged
developments in state court do not undermine the basis for the order, and the
authorities Knochel cites do not support his claim that the district court erred by
failing to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding those developments.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --