B. Benedict Waters v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.;

13-55378Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJul 31, 2014

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
B. BENEDICT WATERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-55378
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-04895-CAS-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
JUL 31 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

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.
13-55378 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.